Since a commenter mentioned NT Wrong, I thought I ought to comment on what I think the new NT Wrong franchise represents, having quite possibly been involved in inspiring it. I think it is to the original NT Wrong what the Pastoral Epistles and other such pseudepigraphal works are to the authentic Pauline corpus – except that in this case the author of the original works is himself pseudonymous. I view the new blog as a tribute to a hero of biblioblogdom, and not as an attempt to replace, impersonate or otherwise detract from the Wrong legacy.
For the sake of clarity I propose that the designation “+Wrong” be used for the current and all subsequent holders of the Wrongian bishopric. It seems appropriate – since it connotes ‘additions to the Wrongian corpus’ as well as “Rev. Wrong” – and it is far less cumbersome than ‘Pseudo-Wrong’, ‘Deutero-Wrong’ or (far worse) ‘Second Wrong’, ‘Third Wrong’ and so on ad infinitum.
I’m sure that, as with Paul and Star Trek, there will be those who say that only the original was any good. But in an era that has witnessed reboots of Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Knight Rider and Bionic Woman (among others), surely it is in keeping with the spirit of our era to attempt a reboot of NT Wrong as well, is it not? And if (like Glen A. Larson in the case of BSG) the original NT Wrong wishes to be a consultant on the new venture, I am confident his input would be welcomed!
But whether you prefer old Wrong, new Wrong, or manage to appreciate both, do pay the blog a visit, leave a comment to express your appreciation or disapproval, and speculate about who is behind it – a passtime sorely missed in the biblioblogosphere in recent months!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In