A blogger who shall remain nameless (but whom we shall call by the fictional name Jacobus Zwinglius Occidentalis) wrote recently about a “Professor McChewy” who mentioned their own publications but not those of other bibliobloggers. If he had said “Professor McChewie” it would have been a Star Wars reference and clearly an allusion to me (since no one in the biblioblogosphere mentions sci-fi more than I do, I think). But since he didn’t spell it that way, and since I’m tough and grizzly rather than chewy, I can only assume he’s talking about someone else.
In the case of the recent biblioblogging issue of the Bulletin for the Study of Religion, I admit that this time I mentioned only my own article (having previously shared the cover which listed all contributors). If I hadn’t specifically been asked to mention it, I might not have done so at all. Alas, the journal is not freely available, and thus most people who read this blog will never have the opportunity to read what I and other contributors wrote. And given that the issue is about blogging, a means by which scholars share their thoughts freely with others, there is an obvious irony.
Be that as it may, the post I mentioned at the beginning does raise an important question, namely redundancy in the biblioblogosphere. When it comes to some things, such as the Biblical Studies Carnival, I tend to mention them even though I am sure others will do the same (and, depending when I get around to mentioning it, some may have already done so). But in other cases (e.g. book announcements) I tend to share them in my Google Reader sidebar, where those who read my own blog via Google Reader will not see them. And so I wonder whether there are readers who wish I would mention more books and articles that I’ve heard are forthcoming or recently published (and thus have not yet read, but sound interesting).
Blogs can also share information that is of uncertain value. One example is the claim that George Clooney is making a movie depicting the invention of Christianity in mythicist terms. Ari rightly realized that, as one might expect from mythicist sources, the movie is a fabrication, a myth without any basis in history or cinematography. And in a way I’m disappointed. There are all sorts of problems with mythicism, but one of them is its failure to ever come up with a remotely plausible reconstruction of how Christianity was supposedly invented if their claims about it are true. And so attempting to turn it into a movie would have been progress. (In the mean time, there’s a movie being made about Hildegard von Bingen).
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In