Loads of academics blog these days. But that hasn’t always been the case. However, Mark is no newcomer to the game and Mark has been blogging since the beginning. In fact, if you take a look at Blogging the Bible, A Short History, you’ll learn that he was one of the first (along with Jim Davila and yours truly).
So when Mark opines that
For me, the blog is something more informal, more chatty than the published paper. I write differently here from the way that I write in peer-reviewed articles. My tone is much more colloquial. I speak differently in the classroom, differently again in the NT Pod. So now that I look back at the blog post in question, I notice that I talk casually about the cross “bouncing out of the tomb”; I use a little cartoon illustration; I speak in the first person a good deal and I speculate openly. It is all round much more informal and colloquial.
Blogs are just a place to think out loud. That’s all. They are sometimes witty, sometimes clever, sometimes entertaining, but always, always of a different genre than an academic paper or a publication. I’ve been of the belief all along, and have said for years, that research belongs in books and articles and blog posts belong in the same category of the 16th Century Flugschrift- a little piece which ‘flies off’ the printer’s bench for immediate, and temporary, consumption.
Personally I can’t think of any reason to cite a blog posting in a formal paper or book (unless that formal paper or book is on the subject of blogging, and then only to illustrate some point of research).
Naturally others are free to cite what they will. But genre matters and understanding the genre of blogs helps readers deal with them properly and not give them undue weight whilst making an argument.
NB- I do hope, though, that Mark’s being mentioned helps his flagging Alexa ranking…
That’s just sad… One day, maybe he can catch up…