Thanks, Pat. Your words mean a lot. I, obviously, enjoy reading your stuff as well (even if you are a bit too into that apocalyptic thing for me!–wink).

I have found it wise, and helpful, to just stay out of these recent blogging kerfuffles.

I’m staying out of this one as well.

How can you be “too into” apocalyptic??

I know, Pat. It’s hard for me to understand also. It’s probably the equivalent of NOT being interested in the Jacob cycle. Just . . . . pshhhh . . . . puzzling!

Well, just for the record, I am interested in the Jacob cycle. Just not as much as I am in Jesus.

Would it be wrong if I said the same was true for me, only in reverse?

Of course

I think I’ve clarified my position in my “about the end” post. I don’t take blogging all that seriously. I never have. But I do take my professional organization (SBL) and its affiliations seriously. That’s where my problem started. And a lack of leadership compounded with a lack of civility only made matters worse.

By the way, I turned off comments globally when I ended the blog. I didn’t show a “comments” link on the last two posts because the comments had already been turned off for the whole site. (Sometimes people comment on much older posts and I didn’t want to give the impression that I was actively maintaining the site).

Alan, Thanks for the clarification. It’s a fair point: (1) that you take your membership with SBL quite seriously, (2) you think that an affiliation with “Bibliobloggers” reflects poorly upon the SBL, and (3) you would prefer not to be associated with that group which you feel makes a negative impression on the SBL.

On the other hand, it seems to me that your own blog (if you kept blogging) would be evidence against number 2. If you take your own personal membership with SBL that seriously, isn’t yours the sort of blog that SBL would want to highlight for its other members who are oblivious to blogging (if that were one of the purposes of the affiliation)?

From your post, it feels to me that you are placing a great weight on Jim W. as the “leader” of Biblioblogging. Just so you know, I do consider myself a biblioblogger, but I do not consider Jim West my leader (even if he gets lots of visits on his blog). I think most bibliobloggers would say the same. And honestly, I don’t think that Jim himself would even claim such a role.

I would just like to say that I hope that you reconsider your position.

>>If you take your own personal membership with SBL that seriously, isn’t yours the sort of blog that SBL would want to highlight for its other members who are oblivious to blogging<< My membership in SBL isn't what I take so seriously; rather, the way the SBL conducts itself and the affiliations it forges and its credibility. . . . I don't know if they'd want to highlight my blog. I say explicitly on my blog (at the very bottom) that the blog is the work of a scholar but not a scholarly work. I do post some of my writing as a kind of preview for friends to look at and give me feedback. But I often also post stuff that is polemical, personal, or just sort of arm-chair musings. I also criticize the SBL sometimes, especially early on when the blog started. So my blog is a mixed bag, which is what I've told Kent Richards. Blogging is more like a hobby to me, sometimes a hobby horse. I think a lot of us see it that way. It's not like doing serious scholarship. It's like talking shop. Maybe biblioblogging does foster biblical scholarship. Maybe the SBL should support it. I think I may have had a different reaction if the point-man for getting the affiliation recognized had shown more leadership, provided more clarity about what was going on (in a civil manner!), and been explicit about how individual bloggers could decide to relate themselves to this organization–probably too strong of a word–called Bibliobloggers. I think some of this is clearer now. But we know how it went that first week or so. . . . The other thing I should make clear: I’m a pre-tenure faculty member. My professional work has been (3rd year review) and will again be carefully scrutinized by peers who will decide whether I get to keep my job. I thought my association with the Biblioblogger “group” might not only reflect poorly upon the SBL but upon me professionally too because it might make my blog look like one of my professional associations and not just a personal blog (related by theme to stuff I work on). Recall the disclaimer at the bottom of my blog. I’ve tried to be very clear that although I have an academic position, my blog, which is the work of a scholar, is not part of my “real” academic work. I did this from the start to make sure I could explain it away as a personal project to a P&T committee if I ever had to. (I used my real name and gave my academic institution on my blog to keep me honest and civil “in the cyber-community” just as I would here in Stockton when I meet people and tell them what I do for a living.) Call me paranoid, but one doesn’t want to endanger one’s livelihood with questionable associations (in terms of value but also in terms of personal impact). And I saw Bibliobloggers-as-an-”official”-SBL-affiliate, based on what I had to go on, as such a questionable association. When you have to start thinking about tenure and you’ve got three kids dependent upon you, your brain will work differently, too. You know?

Thanks, Alan. Good points. I completely understand the personal reasons.

I am thinking about not only tenure, but also simply gaining employment in a couple years. I try not to produce anything here that would reflect poorly upon me in that effort. And I do have one kid who is dependent on me and my wife in that search. So, I do feel you.

oh you’re mistaken. i am not only THE leader of biblioblogdom but i am lord and master of all bloggers and those who disagree are not allowed to blog from henceforth.

and, i have a bridge in new york for sale. i’m happy, happy, happy to sell it to all those who believe that anyone is in charge of blogdom. really. i mean it. for cheap…