I posted on this, this morning, but I went to reread James’ post, thinking that made I could find the root of his argument, but I found this. James has this to say about what counts as a biblioblogger:
Jim writes on archaeology, and that is indeed what I would consider to be a related topic for biblical studies. However, I would not consider political issues, systematic theology issues, and church history issues as being related to biblical studies. I am sure many will disagree with me.
(snip)
In my opinion, a biblioblog is a blog that is focused primarily on biblical studies.
To which, my response is:
James, perhaps you can define for us what you would consider a ‘biblioblogger’? I mean, dismiss Church History – because, you know, that’s not related to bible studies. Oh, and theology, because, you know, that’s not related to bible studies.
Oh, and depravity? I mean, sure, Paul, Augustine, and Calvin wouldn’t be included in your category, but hey, we can talk about digging in the sand.
Frankly, biblical studies pertains to a lot more than digging up relics from the sands – it does involved theology, translation issues, doctrines, Tradition, Church History, and politics, when it crosses the bounds of religion. Furthermore and all that, depravity falls well within the scope of biblical studies as by studying the bible, you might actually find the root cause of humanity’s depravity.
Looking at James’ archives, I see that he posts about 5-7 posts a month. This could be why his traffic is so law – you know, because Google forgets about him.
Of course, going by his own standard, because his posting on this subject, it might be time to take him off the biblioblog list.
(For continuing discussion which takes James comments for what they are, see here and here.)
June 25th, 2009 10:15 am
”
Looking at James’ archives, I see that he posts about 5-7 posts a month. This could be why his traffic is so law – you know, because Google forgets about him.
Of course, going by his own standard, because his posting on this subject, it might be time to take him off the biblioblog list.”
Ouch, how do you really feel?! Assuming your take on the stats is correct, though, you make an interesting point. And a good one . . . . challenging hypocrisy.
I tend to post a variety . . . . on the OT, my dissertation, personal stuff, helpful advice to prospective Ph.D. applicants, etc. I don’t near have–nor do I care to have–the output JW does. But that’s fine with me.
We bibliobloggers are an eclectic group. Some pastors. Some professors. Some grad students at the masters and Ph.D. level. Aspiring scholars. And that is what makes it fun. And enlightening.
This is a hobby. If the number one blogger for the month got a cash bonus or something, then you would see me griping!!!
June 25th, 2009 6:17 pm
Well, you probably know how I’ll come down because of how I blog. The blogs I prefer are ones in which I can catch a glimpse of the blogger, and the only way that will happen is if they post on things other than those biblically related.
June 25th, 2009 10:54 am
Amen to that, John. Frankly, I think the whole thing is nonsense. I like posting a variety of things, all somehow related, I hope, to biblical things. I tried to keep up with the good Doctor, but it tires you out, doesn’t it? Personally, James’ series of posts are fine, and biblically related, but this latest thing is just silly.
June 25th, 2009 9:40 pm
Bitsy, indeed, you are right. If I judged everyone by my ‘ideas’ on biblioblogging, then it would be a very lonely field – which is why I like and subscribe toa wide range of great blogs, generally religious in nature, but like you, I do not want a blogger behind a desk. I want someone who, while reading their non-biblically related materials, tells me where they are coming from.