List of Bibliobloggers – Conservative or Liberal?
Posted by NT Wrong on October 29, 2008
Biblioblogger Esteban Vázquez types his response to a post, during a torrid Biblioblog Debate concerning the Existence of the Enclitic Mem in Hebrew.
A couple of evenings ago I compiled a list of currently active bibliobloggers. While there are a few such lists about, these are often not up-to-date (including dead or defunct biblioblogs), mix in primarily theological, devotional, and other blogs, list only like-minded bloggers, or have an Anglo-American bias.
So, I have compiled a list of 104 [129] biblioblogs [and counting…]. I’m sure there are a number of good ones I’ve yet missed, so let me know.
With taxonomic fervour, I have also classified the blogs in two ways:
- 1. According to their specialisation: General, Translation and Linguistics, Theory and Reception, Early Judaism, Early Judaism and ANE, Early Judaism and Judaism, Early Christianity.
2. According to their [biblical studies-related, not political] conservative or liberal bent: Very Conservative, Fairly Conservative, Conservative Liberal, Liberal, Very Liberal.
It provides a revealing snapshot of the biblioblogging world.
If you know a blog with substantial biblical studies content which I have missed out, and you wish to be included, please fill in the form below or email me at n_t_wrong [at] yahoo [dot] co [dot] uk
The permanent Biblioblog List is available here.
42 Responses to “List of Bibliobloggers – Conservative or Liberal?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
N.T.WRONG 
Mike said
hmmm…I didn’t know egalitarians could be very conservative…
Chuck Grantham said
Is there a “too un-informed to be anything but very conservative” category?
Howabouts “Posts for a very conservative audience he’s trying to baby step to fairly conservative”?
Mind you, as a lifelong Republican and decade plus Rush listener, I’d probably be very upset to be called a “liberal” anything. I wouldn’t sleep at night.
If were to make a biblioblogger list, it would of course be classified by how funny I thought the blogs were. One has to have important standards.
John Lyons said
Great idea.
Of course, it raises questions about your categories and how you apply them. Particularly I wonder if a category is applied to a person because of their personal views (but expressed how often?) or because of the material they blog on. Many conservatives are happier being critical about non-canonical texts, for example – it is less dangerous in career terms for one thing. But would that critical edge be enough to rate them liberal or would their underlying conservatism be the deciding factor?
I usually hate labels – they have not served me well in the past – but here today, glad to be thought liberal!
ntwrong said
You make me feel so dirty for being in such a binary frame of mind, John. Yes – I think labels always have the potential to enable thought and disable it at the same time. And a lot of harm is done by those who ‘forget’ their categories are convenient constructions.
Did I guess the attitude from the material they blog on? I disclose that I did the conservative-liberal classification as an afterthought (I’m actually using this data for an entirely different purpose, to be announced on Nov 1). I hopefully went for “underlying” attitudes — I specifically looked for posts on inspiration and bib interpretation no matter what the main focus of the blog — I also looked at who they liked to read — and then there was the ‘vibe’ 😉 . Mind you, I suspect those doing literary approaches, Theory, and ‘non-canonicals’ are more likely to have a liberal approach to biblical studies than those who prefer to study Paul’s Epistle to the Romans…. and to deconstruct my binary, there’s the work on Paul by Badiou, Zizek…etc etc.
ntwrong said
Chuck – while I think there would be a recognisable correlation between conservative/liberal approaches to biblical studies and politics overall (and I definitely considered it while reading through the blogs), I noticed a couple of individual exceptions here and there.
steph said
Funny – your definition of liberal seems a little to the right of mine. A few of your very liberals I’d classify is only liberal if not fairly conservative and a couple of your conservatives are very conservative. As for some of the very conservatives – well they just fall off the scale, especially Tintin.
John – I think you’re more liberal than you let on.
ntwrong said
But Steph – my version of “liberal” is empirically sound, and is based on the assured results of biblical scholarship.
J. K. Gayle said
Naming and classifying! How very conservative! Aristotle is quite pleased, and so are the pigeons in their holes. (By that, of course, he can only mean “A member of the family Columbidae,” which also includes the doves; although some of the rest of us intend, by it, things altogether different.)
J. K. Gayle
Aristotle’s Feminist Subject
http://speakeristic.blogspot.com
—-
PS Why not let The Voice of Stefan speak?
Esteban Vázquez
http://voxstefani.blogspot.com/
Esteban Vázquez said
What?! I come to see whether I am liberal or conservative, and I don’t even get mentioned?! No wonder I don’t read this blog. 😉
steph said
You’re scaring me now!
ntwrong said
J. K. –
Oh – all you Aristotelians think alike – essentially.
My guilty conscience was thinking I was being very nineteenth century in all this ordering.
Esteban, huh? Thank you for telling me. (We’ll see if there’s a place to slot him in.)
ntwrong said
BTW, Steph, who’s Tintin?
ntwrong said
Esteban – I apologize profusely for the omission of your delightful blog. And besides, your fan-club is about to lynch me.
Esteban Vázquez said
Oh, I’m included now! It’s the least you could do, after using my picture without attribution.
I very nearly invoked my minions in my blog over this matter, but then figured they would be stirred without further provocation. For the record, their preferred method is to hang, draw, and quarter.
I had included your unspoken endorsement in my blog’s sidebar (“Not in my list of biblioblogs”), but now I have updated it to reflect the change.
Oh, and I too find your blog delightful. Vote Obama!
Mike said
NT – Ah…now I see what the conservative – liberal classification is based. I suppose I could take that, though my thoughts on inspiration have changed since the last time I mentioned the subject. But you’re probably right on hermeneutics and interpretation.
Mike said
*is based on.
Duane said
Are you trying to kill me? Here I am working my very liberal a… off trying to put the next Biblical Studies Carnival together and you provide a list of bloggers that includes many of whom I’ve never heard and whose blogs I’ve never read.
ntwrong said
Duane – Mwuah harr harrr! [evil laugh]
I had thought about its use for the Carnival host, although it would have been nicer of me to come up with it at the start of the month, I guess. But I’m just not nice.
Incidentally, you’re the only other person who knows why I compiled this list (all will be revealed Nov 1).
Chris Weimer said
I’m wondering how Thoughts on Antiquity is considered “conservative”?
Chris Weimer, Founder
Thoughts on Antiquity
Chris Weimer said
Or for that matter how we got included in the New Testament category? I mean, I know we’re a little lopsided, but cannibalism, critical text of the Hebrew Bible (which is a liberal position, I would think), and Hippocrates are the top 3/4 posts…?
All the best,
Chris Weimer
ntwrong said
Chris – Hmmmmm… I’ve reclassified to the “General” category – the blog has a lot of NT material, but I guess it’s hard to pin down.
Now, you’re liberal enough, but some of the others are fairly conservative. Maybe I’ll go for both. WHat do you say?
Ken Schenck said
It’s funny that you have me as very conservative, although I understand why. Maybe I can use you as a reference for those who want to get rid of me for being ultra-liberal. We can all pine for the days when we get that million dollar novel deal so we no longer have to worry about the Spanish Inquisition.
ntwrong said
Ken – a categorization on this blog is surely irrefutable evidence of your ‘very conservativeness’. Added to that, Peter Enns got a ‘fairly conservative’.
steph said
Tintin looks like Austin Powers, sounds like Piglet and regurgitates.
steph said
Esteban, I prefer the bloke on your blog. I didn’t realise you were a pretentious poser! 🙂
Michael Halcomb said
This is a great list!!! You’re right about those with so many broken links. Interesting how you categorized and rated sites too. Oh, btw, It’s Michael “W” Halcomb not Michael “F” Halcomb just in case you feel like editing. I’ll try to note your list on Pisteuomen tomorrow.
Ken Brown said
So there’s “Very Conservative” and “Fairly Conservative” but just “Liberal” and “Very Liberal.” I see how it is… Liberals are never fair!
In any case, shouldn’t there be a “moderate” category, or is that too little fun? 😉
ntwrong said
Bah – ‘Liberal’ comes inbetween ‘Conservative Liberal’ and ‘Very Liberal’. Yes – ‘Moderate’ is far too boring.
Esteban Vázquez said
Steph> Hey now! I resemble that remark! 😉
Chris Weimer said
Bishop – looks mightily better. I guess that’s the problem with having multiple people on board discussing all sorts of things – hard to pin down the exact nature.
Flávio Souza said
Hi! Im Flavio Souza from the AD CUMMULUS blog! I´d like to thank you for this list of blogs idea! It´s a nice iniciative to show our correlated blogs.
In fact, i must say i dIsagree with the classification my blog had just received. i think that Ad Cumulus embraces more the idea related to number 3 – conserv liberal.
Anyways…
steph said
No Estaban – you ain’t Tintin. 🙂
Patrick George McCullough said
Someone told me today that I was listed as “very conservative” and was quite surprised! If you are going to categorize these blogs, I think you should give clear definitions for each category.
For instance, I deny the inerrancy of Scripture, which certainly doesn’t make me “very conservative” theologically. I do subscribe to the historical critical method, rather than ideological approaches to hermeneutics, which makes me more “conservative” in my scholarly methodology. I am a feminist, which probably doesn’t make me “very conservative” theologically. I am a Christian and simply stating that may make me “conservative” in some eyes. I am voting for Obama, which is “liberal” for Republican-types, but perhaps too “conservative” for Nader fans. I got an MDiv from Fuller Seminary, which some say is “conservative” and some say is “liberal” (I note that Jim Getz is “liberal” and he also went to Fuller for his Master’s degree). I am currently at UCLA for my PhD, which I wouldn’t call “conservative.”
If someone googles my name and finds me here listed as “Very Conservative”, I would like them to know how that continuum is defined for you, the judge. I would also like them to see my comment here and know that I don’t think I fit into that category whatsoever.
All in all, it seems like a good exercise in seeing how ineffective, confusing, and generally unhelpful this terminology is.
Brian said
You are missing Darrell Bock’s blog:
http://blog.bible.org/bock/blog
And Scot McKnight’s blog:
http://www.jesuscreed.org/
And Nick Meyer’s:
http://jesuspaulluke.blogspot.com/
And Rod Decker’s:
http://ntresources.com/blog/
ntwrong said
Patrick – I had a look at your blog again, and see that although you’ve been squarely in the ‘very conservative’ group in the past, and some of your posts still show a distinctly fundamentalist mindset, you’ve changed to the ‘fairly conservative’ group now. As I’m a most reasonable fellow, I have changed your label to a mere ‘fairly conservative’.
You’ll see my definitions here. I still think they’re kind of useful from a relative point of view.
ntwrong said
Thanks, Brian!
steph said
You’re really ruffling feathers. How amusing. 🙂
Patrick George McCullough said
Hey NT, Your definition (though not all definitions) of “fairly conservative” is closer to reality for me, based on the link you provided. I’m not interested in defining myself in the emerging church, but I’m an Anabaptist and they are borrowing some of my tradition’s ideas, so… close enough, I suppose.
I’m surprised you think some of my posts display a fundamentalist mindset. I was indeed a fundamentalist in high school and have, in a sense, been reacting against it ever since. For the past ten years, I would not in any shape or form put myself in your “very conservative” category, if that is what you are calling fundamentalist. But I fundamentalism is one of those subjective judgments as well. It is a harmful label at times, but I use it for people I think are too conservative as well. So, c’est la vie.
BTW, I’m not angry. I do think your list is somewhat amusing. But your list is public and I want people who find a name here to understand your definitions. It’s good that you make the definitions clear from the beginning in your new link.
ntwrong said
Patrick – I changed you over to ‘fairly conservative’ when I reread your blog, and I agree that’s where you fit in my admittedly simplistic schema.
I put the definitions at the head of the list after reading your comments, and agree that my descriptions should have been accurate to that, and I had originally missed the mark with your blog.
I deliberately used ‘very conservative’ rather than ‘fundamentalist’, because it’s become something of an accusation rather than just a meaningful word. And ‘fundamentalist’ (as defined by James Barr in ‘On Fundamentalism’, say)doesn’t quite apply to all of the ‘very conservative’ bibliobloggers.
Jim Darlack said
Nijay K Gupta’s blog should certainly be added to the list. He’s a PhD student at Durham (UK). http://nijaygupta.wordpress.com/
Jim said
durham NC?
J.C Baker said
LOL, I am not very conservative. According to your list, I should be labeled liberal.