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.
“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.
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.