A comment yesterday to my post on the Gospels’ Queer Values read

Thanks for this. I’ve recently started a blog (a little less serious!) on queer Bible criticism and will keep an eye on your blog as things progress.
Warm regards,
BW16

bwsixteen.wordpress.com

As I always do when I find a link in my comments threads, I had a look at it - and found myself starting a startling, exhilarating ride around the biblioblogosphere, one that I could never do justice to.

BW’s comment described the site as “less serious” than mine. Less serious perhaps, but this is highly sophisticated, scholarly play, as the masthead picture suggests:

The site itself is packed with parody. How else can one respond to this post?

EXPLORING ANAL TEXTURE IN THE KISS OF JUDAS

Some of my colleagues have been asking me what an exploration of “anal texture” involves. Anal texture is one of the four sextures of Sexio-Rhetorical criticism, and is actually short for the more academic term “analysis.” Exploration of a text’s anal texture involves looking at the ways in which interpreters of the text have anal-lyzed it’s contents. Questions asked include: Is this exegesis asexual? Does gentle prodding of the exegesis reveal a hidden queerity? And so on and so fourth.

One example of anal texture can be found in Dr BW3′s translation of the Greek verb kataphiliō (to kiss). In his so-called Socio-Rhetorical commentary on the Gospel of Mark, BW3 translates the kiss of betrayal between Judas and Jesus in Mark 14:43-45 as follows:

‘The one who I will kiss is him. Seize him and lead him away securely.’ And coming immediately he approached him saying ‘Rabbi,’ and he kissed him with every show of affection.” (p361)

One observes in BW3′s translation that the very thought of seizing Jesus prompts Judas to come prematurely. But what interests me more in terms of anal texture is BW3′s description of the kiss between two men as involving “every show of affection.”

Read the rest of the bewildering piece at the original - but note the similarity between “Dr BW3” and “BW16″. (And what, I wonder innocently, is the significance of the “16″, or of the full title of the blog, which is not accurately conveyed in words?

I had assumed that 16 referred to a certain gentleman in Rome, but no: it seems it is in fact a tribute to BW3, referred to in the extract above, as explained in a post called BW3 admits BW16′s queer criticism has successfully crossed a line :

If I may justify my actions a little further, I only write under the name BW16 because I hold BW3 in such high esteem. My inspiration for writing pseudonymously comes from the many letters written under the name of the Apostle Paul. These author’s wrote using Paul’s name because they wished to emulate him and his authority. I consider myself 13 spaces removed from BW3 hence the number 16.

This is fun, but it’s not all academics making fun of each other. There’s more serious, really useful stuff too (but tread carefully, lest you confuse the two). Take a look at Objectivity and queer bible scholarship, and a report on a new book, Bible Trouble, by Teresa J. Hornsby and Ken Stone (Author of God’s Beauty Parlour). This is just a news report, mind, not an actual review:

This collection will likely make a significant contribution to the growing sub-field of objective queer Bible criticism and I look forward to engaging with it once I can find a pirated pdf to download.

That’s a sentiment with which I can readily identify.

The site is packed with useful links, too. One of these, to Dr James McGrath’s Exploring Our Matrix, is itself a treasure trove of links to posts on biblical themes, from a myriad of perspectives - but beginning, as he writes, with some vulgarity and sex.

Biblical Studies Carnival September 2011 Episode II:

The Biblioblogs Strike Back

Let’s start with a bit of vulgarity and sex, to really get this second part of the carnival rolling!

Pseudo-Aristotle discussed the use of swear words in Bible translations.

BW16, who has been commenting on a variety of blogs lately, started a blog of his/her own as an “objective queer Bible scholar”. BW16 was delighted to have crossed a line (in BW3’s view, at least).

Chad Holtz discussed homosexuality as God’s gift to the church. And in response to Ben Witherington revisiting an earlier exchange on homosexuality, Remnants of Giants offered an interpretation of the David and Goliath story as a disagreement between two homosexual men. Whether or not Uriah knew about that, James Pate asks whether he knew about David and Bathsheba, while Deirdre Good’s mention of gays and lesbians saving marriage surely didn’t have David, Goliath, Jonathan and Bathsheba in mind.

- see the full, comprehensive list at Dr. James F. McGrath, Exploring Our Matrix.

Some of links raise important issues, which I will attempt to discuss separately. Until I do - thanks to BW16 (and three-quarters) for starting me on a fun roller-coaster journey. I am sure I will find more to write about there, too, in the months to come.