In the case of the recent biblioblogging issue of the Bulletin for the Study of Religion<\/i>, I admit that this time I mentioned only my own article (having previously shared the cover which listed all contributors<\/a>). If I hadn\u2019t 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n Be that as it may, the post I mentioned at the beginning does raise an important question, namely redundancy<\/i> in the biblioblogosphere. When it comes to some things, such as the Biblical Studies Carnival<\/a>, 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\u2019ve heard are forthcoming or recently published (and thus have not yet read, but sound interesting).<\/p>\n Blogs can also share information that is of uncertain value. One example is the claim<\/a> that George Clooney is making a movie depicting the invention of Christianity in mythicist terms<\/a>. Ari rightly realized<\/a> 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\u2019m disappointed. There are all sorts of problems with mythicism<\/a>, 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\u2019s a movie being made about Hildegard von Bingen<\/a>).<\/p>\n A blogger who shall remain nameless (but whom we shall call by the fictional name Jacobus Zwinglius\u00a0Occidentalis) wrote recently about a \u201cProfessor McChewy\u201d who mentioned their own publications but not those of other bibliobloggers. If he had said \u201cProfessor McChewie\u201d it would have been a Star Wars reference and clearly an allusion to me (since […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-5450797117046235477?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")