Doug asked ‘So what is a biblioblog anyway?’ He defines it this way:
I define a biblioblog as one that regularly discusses questions of biblical translation and interpretation from a viewpoint that is concerned to draw on and comfortable with employing historical and theological methods and questions such as are used in the academy. It doesn’t have to be written by a believer. It can also be of some direct impact on practical church and spiritual questions. Its use of the bible is not simply devotional, or focused on how “God spoke to me” through this verse.
The Biblioblogs list defines a biblioblog as:
“Biblioblogs are blogs which deal primarily with matters concerning scholarly or academic biblical studies.”
“Related Blogs… have a different primary focus (e.g. theology, ancient Near Eastern archaeology, devotional and homiletic approaches to the Bible) or are commercial rather than personal blogs – yet which contain some biblical studies material.”
So, what it is? Or is it best to define it as what it is not? I congratulate those Top 100 Church blogs, but I must say, that while many of them are indeed fine blogs, they do not fit the category, as roughly defined as it is, of a biblioblog. While every post that I do may not easily fit the definition, I try to maintain a certain percentage to feel that I am being honest to it. As Dr. West has put it, sometimes – sometimes – biblioblogging does contain blogging about life lead in the shadow of the Bible.
In that spirit, I someone named Joel “Soon to be King of the Mountain” Watts nominated Peter Kirk – even with our past disagreements – for inclusion in the list and he was accepted.
Not withstanding David Ker’s comment, the list is fun, and helpful and not completely filled with ‘minimalists, deconstructionists and academics who focus on fringe and unorthodox topics.’ Some of us are rather near maximalism, strict constructionists, and believer’s endeavoring to focus on orthodoxy. But, David is right – I appreciate my Debs, my Fr. Roberts, my Wb Moore’s, my Jordan Wilson’s and my Bitsy Griffin’s and all the others that I fail to mention which regularly contribute to this blog – readers, bloggers, cyber-friends who add to my life in immeasurable ways. And the occasional Dr. West’s.
September 8th, 2009 9:42 am
What’s wrong with being a deconstructionist and an orthodox maximalist?
September 8th, 2009 10:59 am
I’m surprised he wasn’t already on the list.
September 8th, 2009 11:33 am
For me it’s a question of who gets to drive the bus and who wants to get on for the ride.
September 8th, 2009 6:10 pm
Oh man! I may cry.
The funny thing is that the very thing that I’ve been reading about women in biblioblogging – I didn’t experience that. I was accepted and welcomed. I had no idea anyone felt marginalized. I was amazed when people found me from the biblioblogger’s list as a related blog. (My first thoughts were, “How in the world did that happen!) This has been a great community (so far
) of which to be a part.
September 12th, 2009 8:01 am
[...] however, some have questioned the idea of formalizing the group – which has been seen as a rather fun initiative (and always the wisdom from this blogger). Some simply have questions (and here), especially after [...]
September 8th, 2009 9:47 am
Who said anything was wrong with being a minimalist? Sure, I mean, I want to get to heaven, but others can do what they wish…
September 8th, 2009 11:17 am
Me too – he went dark for a while, but returned in force. Plus, there was that Todd Bentley stuff.
September 8th, 2009 11:42 am
I reckon I can see that point, David, but from what I can see, they have generally been receptive to suggestions.
September 8th, 2009 7:09 pm
Thank you to share your positive imput, so rare today it seems. Blog on!
September 8th, 2009 8:10 pm
I like it! It took me several months to get on the list, back with N.T. Wrong? was running it, but I had to make myself known.