The English language cannot contain what I do.<\/p>\n
So, by the power vested in me by the Internet, I hereby invent a new word, Bibliogian\u00a9<\/strong>. Anytime you use it footnote me and send me $1.<\/p>\n Theologians, church historians, and philosophers have their own words. So why can\u2019t I?<\/p>\n Hi, my name\u2019s Tim and I\u2019m a philosopher. My name\u2019s Susan and I\u2019m a historian. My name\u2019s Ruprecht and I\u2019m a theologian.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Hi, my name\u2019s Pete and I\u2019m a Bib. . . \u00a0uh . . . <\/em><\/p>\n Bible guy,<\/em><\/p>\n Bible person,<\/em><\/p>\n I do Bible,<\/em><\/p>\n biblical scholar.<\/em><\/p>\n You see my dilemma. And if you don\u2019t, you\u2019re part of the problem, not the solution.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t like using the noun \u201cBible\u201d as an adjective. Noun modifiers make the grammar gods unhappy. Plus it\u2019s cumbersome and as I said I want my own word, which is the entire point of this post.<\/p>\n Using the adjective \u201cbiblical\u201d generates its own problems.<\/p>\n Calling myself a \u201cbiblical guy\/person\u201d\u00a0sounds like I am trying to assert my orthodoxy when what I am after is\u00a0a job description.\u00a0\u201cBiblical scholar\u201d fails because, not only\u00a0are we back to 2 words (where I want 1) but it\u2019s pretentious:<\/p>\n Hi, my name\u2019s Pete and I\u2019m a biblical scholar. You\u2019re not. Do not approach me, speak my name, or make eye contact.<\/em><\/p>\n Someone\u00a0who \u201cdoes\u201d philosophy is a\u00a0philosopher, but I have a feeling \u201cbibler\u201d won\u2019t catch on. Say it 10 times fast.<\/p>\n The closest we \u201cBible people\u201d have to our own\u00a0word is \u201cbiblicist,\u201d but that sounds awkward. A typist is one who types; a stylist is one who styles hair. A biblicist is one who bibles (?!).<\/p>\n Another problem with \u201cbiblicist\u201d is that it suggests biblicism<\/strong><\/em><\/a>,\u00a0which I want to avoid at all costs\u2014like going to a Cher concert.<\/p>\n Biblicism<\/strong> is the tendency to appeal to individual biblical verses\u00a0or collections of apparently uniform verses\u00a0from diverse contexts to give the appearance of clear,\u00a0authoritative, and unimpeachable\u00a0solutions\u00a0to what are in fact complex interpretive and theological issues generated by the fact that we have a\u00a0complex and diverse Bible.<\/p>\n What I do as a \u201cBible guy,\u201d etc., is to not<\/em> do that and try to teach others not ever to do that, either.<\/p>\n Plus \u201cbiblicist\u201d could be misheard as \u201cBaptist,\u201d and even though \u201csome of my best friends are Baptists,\u201d I don\u2019t want to be one (and they don\u2019t want me, either).<\/p>\n So biblicist won\u2019t work. We need our own name with -ian at\u00a0the end, and\u00a0Bibliogian\u00a9\u00a0<\/strong>is the perfect solution.<\/p>\n Bible<\/strong> + logos<\/strong> (the study of) + ian<\/strong> (one who does that, and with formal training).<\/p>\n This is a great word and I\u00a0hereby humbly force it on you. Say it 100x and it will stay with you forever.<\/p>\n **********<\/p>\n Pete Enns is a bibliogian, and his two most recent bibliogical books are How the Bible Actually Works<\/a>,<\/em>\u00a0The Sin of Certainty<\/a>, <\/em>and\u00a0The Bible Tells Me So![\"\"](\"http:\/\/ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com\/e\/ir?t=inspirandinca-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0062272020\")