Bloggers are intimately familiar with hobby-horse commenters, and for some time I've been meaning to single out a few for honorary notice. Yesterday's developments in the comments under James Crossley's latest post convinced me it was time to do this.
The following are the top three hobby-horse kings of the biblioblogosphere, those who enjoy pushing their pet theories at every possible opportunity (even when the subject is off-topic), to the near exclusion of other interests. Each authors a blog. And each has left zillions of comments (only a few are showcased below) on many different blogs, as if redundant repetition will earn as much respect as the attention they attract.
(1) Geoff Hudson. Hobby-Horses: Everyone under the sun is Jeffrey B. Gibson in disguise. Various conspiracy theories involving the reworking of Paul's letters (see the many comments consolidated under one post), which were originally about purifying the temple of animal sacrifices. Almost everywhere in biblioblogdom, Hudson leaves piles of repetitive and confusing comments, usually in dialogue with himself as much as others. He earns the top slot for sheer volume.I want to offer congratulations to our Hobby-Horse Kings for an unrelenting perseverance, and for holding their ground in the face of so much mainstream ignorance.
(2) Leon Zitzer. Hobby-Horses: All biblical scholars are unscientific, antisemitic, and liars. Scholars are engaged in a witch trial against Judas (see comments). Zitzer laments (see comments): "Biblical scholars suppress debate... They create a faux science so they will appear to be scientific. But real science is forbidden by virtually every scholar as far as I can see. If that seems like a strong statement, I should tell you that it is an eminently provable statement...I seem to be all alone in this. That’s how it goes with science."
(3) Steven Carr. Hobby-Horse: Paul denied that Jesus' corpse was raised from the dead. See further here, here, here, and here (all in comments) for redundantly predictable restatements. To be fair, I don't think Carr is entirely wrong insofar as what he argues against, only that he doesn't allow for more ambiguity and tension in the Pauline view of the resurrection.