The wait is nearly over.... Or is it?

Roland announces the nearly end of the first Quest for NT Wrong.

Much has been learned, some of it useful, most of it complete rubbish. Technology has proved less than conclusive, though no DNA has yet been tested and Roland has so far refused to let Her Majesty's GCHQ get involved.

All the speculation about the fullness of Wrong's humanity seems strangely familiar as does his tendency to appear all over the globe to diverse audiences, all of whom are beginning to develop their own mythologies about the good Bishop.

The use of logical arguments has been pretty flawless so far, but that surely can't last as we enter the final quarter of the game.... Oh sorry, went off topic there for a mo....bloody Crossley and his games.

And then we have the curse of NT Wrong. His name cannot be revealed because the death of the revealer will swiftly follow (Go on, Jim, tell us - you know you want to - it is a price I am willing for you to pay :)

Lyons, cunning type that he is, has laid a trap (but for whom?). Wrong has even more cunningly sprung said trap and now Lyons will be crushed by hoards of Wrong questers as he desperately tries to say one or two things about Johnny Cash in Boston. Or not. :)

Well, all very exciting and lots of material for the Second Quest which will begin when Lyons scrapes himself of the floor in Boston at precisely 6.28pm EST on Sunday 23rd November 2008 (Got to get your dates right for posterity, don't you know), and Chessie is left holding (and covetting big time) a single glass slipper, in which there is a single purple sock. With holes in it. And DNA.

Happy hunting, everybody!

Aaargh! I've Been Memed 2

Roland Boer over at Stalin's Moustache has 'memed' me. Have never done this before, so let's see what is involved.

1. Link to the person who tagged you. DONE!
2. Post the rules on your blog. DONE!
3. Write six random things about yourself. MMM!
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them. MIGHT MANAGE THAT!
5. Let each person know they've been tagged and leave a comment on their blog. SCREW THAT - LET THEM DO THEIR OWN BLOODY RESEARCH!
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up. JEEZ, THIS IS COMPLICATED!

OH AND TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK! Done. Phew.

Six random things:

1. My life was irrevocably altered by the 1981 Monaco Grand Prix.

2. I spent five years working as a photographer.

3. I have flown out to a North Sea oil rig in a helicopter while wearing - and looking good in - a rubber suit.

4. I drive a gas guzzling giant of a motor - and I won't apologise for loving it.

5. I often find the people I work with far more interesting than the work itself.

6. I have contemplated my (uninsured) library being burned up - and I don't think I'd miss it at all.

Six people to tag: Okay, James Crossley, Sean Winter, Simon Woodman, Jim Davila, NT Wrong, and Pat McCullough. It is all Roland's fault, guys. Sorry.

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF BISHOP N.T. WRONG

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF BISHOP N.T. WRONG

I am thrilled to announce my presence (Deo Volente) at W. John Lyons' SBL paper, 'The Apocalypse of John and Its (Many, Modern) Mediators: John of Patmos's Apocalypse, Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around", Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, and the Videographers of YouTube'.

I look forward eagerly to what should be one of the most exciting and stimulating presentations at SBL. Due to baggage restrictions, I will be attending in mufti rather than in the full regalia of My Kingdom of Dirt.

I note that I may have to slip in late to the session from SBL24-108 -- but in plenty of time for W. John Lyons' paper.

SBL paper online

One of my two SBL papers is now available on-line (Preaching the Parable of the Good Samaritan [Like 10.25-37]). This paper is at 4pm on Sunday, 23rd, and is the first paper in one of the Contextual Biblical Interpretation sessions (SBL 23-118). I guess it won't be online for long, and I won't be putting it online myself later, but any comments gratefully received.

The other has to be seen, I'm afraid (The Apocalypse and Its (Many, Modern) Mediators: John's Revelation, Johnny Cash's The Man Comes Around, Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, and the Videographers of YouTube). There are only 2400 words in it, but you also get 4 minutes of a Zombie film and then four YouTube videos, playing simultaneously and all soundtracked with Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around". Always assuming the technology works, of course! :).

This is the last paper in the late afternoon session of the Bible in Ancient and Modern Media seminar on Monday, 24th Nov (SBL 24-105), and so will have as its audience - who knows. It follows two papers on Ruth and two on Job (so there could be a mass exodus at the start). Many also go home on Monday night. Others will be getting ready for a night of carousing at the receptions, a last night blowout. So, Bishop Wrong, to boost my audience, you really should announce that you are going to be present, everyone will come, and in the ensuing melee, your identity will remain unknown. In fact why don't I just announce your presence for you! Hey, everybody.... :)

Top 50 bid

Will blogging more get me higher up the list? :)

William John Lyons

I knew this would catch up with me one day.

Like an idiot I published a couple of things early on as John Lyons. They were on Charismatic Hermeneutics, a former interest of mine. (Sorry NT, I am probably back sliding out of 'liberal' even as I write and you read, but they are on my CV and available from my university webpage to those poor souls trapped, sorry, involved in that form of Christianity so you can't say I have been hiding my past.) But when I cottoned onto the significance of publications for, say, getting a job, I started using my Sunday name, "William John Lyons". Simple fact is I have never used William and wouldn't respond if anyone ever did use it to address me. So I don't tend to use William J because that seems totally disconnected from me. Formally it is William John, informally, John.

But now you are all so bored that you don't care any more. Good, neither do I :)

John

Addendum on comments

I find in my filter - put there, I assure you, just to stop spam - a comment like the following posted by Mike at evepheso.

"I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed in finding your blog. I was really hoping you were John Lyons the linguist - or are you?"

How should I respond? Should I

(a) think it is a joke (poorly signposted perhaps), chuckle a bit, publish it, and respond in a - hopefully - jocular fashion?
(b) feel slighted and sulk?
(c) [take the Jim West option] feel really slighted, ban him for life, and [okay, not quite the Jim West option] tell him to fuck off?

Or

(d) get all literal and think I have better things to do with my time than deal with someone who is supposely into linguistics but doesn't know anything about the real John Lyons, perhaps the greatest name connected with Semantics in the known universe. Would John Lyons really waste his time biblioblogging?

Or

(e) Just give up blogging?

Just asking... :)

John

PS the use of the swear word above is very unusual for me (on-line anyway :). Personally I blame Roland Boer's deeply satisfying question to a commenter on his blog as to whether "a really good crap" equates to a 'deep sense of experience". It is all going down the toilet, I am afraid.

Who read biblioblogs?

A number of things make me wonder about who the audience for biblioblogs is:

1) NT Wrong's recent attempt to measure popularity and the potential for cross-referencing this to find out just how conservative our audience is (or their audience because no-one reads this blog anyway :), here, here, and here.

2) Some of the very long - and often off topic - responses to, e.g., James Crossley's posts.

3) Roland Boer's recent and fleeting musing on whether he should filter wayward comments on his blog.

4) I also seem to recall Jim West blocking the odd person :)

Some folk obviously have their pet peeves and can be expected to bend every comment made so that it is about their topic. But others do want to interact more seriously. But then a number of people also keep referring to the limited number specific blogs they actually read, and Wrong's numbers show why this almost has to be the case. So just how are these chosen - accidentally, organically, or ideologically?

What I am wondering is this. Are there many liberals out there reading liberal blogs and the same for conservative? Or are people in these camps mainly reading blogs with opposing viewpoints? Or are people reading a bit of everything? Is biblioblogging - both in terms of bloggers and audence - dominated by those with a conservative or extreme mind-set (and here that means something like Wrong's categories)?

(The nice thing about blogging is I haven't got a cat in hell's chance of working that out, but I can always toss the question out into the ether.)

One final question, do we actually like each other very much? Is there anyone you wouldn't want to meet up at SBL with? Or do you feel that asking that question is just wrong-headed?

Love to all,

John

Now, should I filter any comments....?