While catching up with other blogs I came across this comment in a post by Ian at Irreducable Complexity that jolted me. It was written by Sabio Lantz who has sometimes left a comment here:
He wrote here:
I actually enjoy Neil Godfrey’s writings sometimes — but it is usually beyond my pay grade – as is Ian’s stuff when he is not kind! But usually Ian is very kind and keeps stuff simple for us lay folks.
Ouch. That smarts a little because it’s true. When I started this blog I was always sure to keep my posts clear. I kept foremost in mind how I had to struggle when first reading esoteric terms like “Q” and “redaction criticism” and “oral tradition” and “intertextuality” and “Messianic Secret” etcetera etcetra to get my head around what the writers were talking about.
I wanted this blog to be, above all, a means by which I could share with others the books and articles that I had had the opportunities to read with others.
I cannot deny that some of my posts in recent months, maybe more than twelve, have been impatiently written with a certain academic or well-educated lay hobbyist in mind.
There was a time when I’d stop to explain each and every technical term I introduced into a post and I have to admit I have become lazy in that department lately.
I hope to be mindful to at least explain the jargon, if not avoid it, once again from now on.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Prof. “Errorman” and the non-Christian sources: Hermann Detering’s Complete Review of Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? - 2020-07-02 06:49:00 GMT+0000
- Prof. “Errorman” and the non-Christian sources — Part 3: Tacitus and Josephus - 2020-06-30 00:01:17 GMT+0000
- Prof. “Errorman” and the non-Christian sources — Part 2: Pliny’s Letter - 2020-06-29 00:01:48 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!