1. Tom Wright, The New Testament For Everyone

2. Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

3. Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

4. Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

5. Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (aka: “Philippians Revisited: Higher up & deeper in”)

6. Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

7. Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

8. Ben Witherington III, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John

9. Ben Witherington III, Is there a doctor in the house? An Insider’s Story and Advice on Becoming a Bible Scholar

10. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her

BW16

While 2011 saw a focus on the four “sextures” of the text (namely, anal texture, intercourse texture, rainbow texture, and oral texture), 2012 will see a thrust towards the six “pornolects” of biblical discourse. These will be expounded in a succession of blog posts and I invite feedback to help improve and further develop the anal-ytic.

Anal-ysis of pornology (the dirty reasoning a text presents) and pornography (the dirty images a text evokes) in biblical discourse already exists as a vibrant field of study; however, as of yet no one has developed a systematic approach that is specific to the anal-ysis of biblical literature itself. Scholars of biblical porn (or as Boer designates the field: “grotesque biblical scholarship”) tend to rely on theorists from other disciplines, whether that be the realms of philosophy, sociology, sexology, and so on. While these studies are indeed useful  in understanding the construction of certain sexual tropes, and/or positional configurations, there is an unfortunate over-domestication of the text from 21st century socio-sexual codes and mores. One difference, for instance, can be found in the focus on gender differentiation (women in the Bible, the performance of masculinity, femininity, etc) instead of actual physical bodily parts and their functions. The social scientific Bible scholar Bruce J. Malina notes how in the Mediterranean world an “extreme emphasis [is placed] on the human genitals” (Social World of Jesus, p108). Biblical scholarship in general, and objective queer Bible scholarship in particular, has tended to avoid an anal-ysis of these and other visual images evoked by the pornography of the text (say the reference to eunuchs in Mt 19:12).

So how, then, can we measure the impact of human genitalia and other categories of interest in the biblical text? The answer is of course to be found in the six “pornolects” of biblical discourse that I am to develop. My next post will delve straight into the first “pornolect” of Sexio-Rhetorical criticism, namely, the “procreation pornolect,” which focuses on the carnal ritual of “begetting” in the Bible.

BW16

1. rainbow (462)

2. bw16 (61)

3. sexio (50)

4. cum stains (23)

5. christian girls (21)

6. castrate (14)

7. crossing a line (14)

8. victorian straight jacket (10)

9. asexual scholarships (10)

10. jizzing (9)

BW16

The SBL Anal Meeting

There are a number of interesting new developments in the world of Objective Queer Biblical Studies these days and I thought I would direct your attention to call for papers for the annual gathering of Bible scholars known as the Society of Biblical Literature An_al Meeting (this year held in Chicago). The call for papers was announced a few days back and closes on the 1st of March.

Of interest are the following two sections:

LGBT/QUEER HERMENEUTICS

Call For Papers: The LGBT/ Queer Hermeneutics program unit invites papers for OPEN SESSIONS on the following topics: “Legal Literature through a Queer Lens,” which continues our genre series. We invite proposals that extend LGBT/Queer hermeneutics to legal texts within the biblical tradition. This includes texts traditionally described as “Law” (i.e. the legal materials in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), household codes (i.e. Pauline, Deutero-Pauline, Pastorals), and interpretive traditions which are related or interpret these legal discourses. Papers that engage the relationship between biblical traditions and contemporary discussions of law from a queer perspective are also welcome. We also invite papers that engage “Intersections between Drag and Biblical Traditions.” Papers may explore cross dressing in biblical traditions and cognate literatures, the ways in which drag theory illuminates biblical texts, and/or the ways in which biblical texts are employed and reinterpreted in drag performance. Proposals on any aspect of LGBT/Queer Hermeneutics in conversation with biblical and cognate literatures–including texts from the ancient Near East–are welcome as well. We also invite papers for a JOINT SESSION with the program unit “Women in the Biblical World.” The session will be based on the new book “Bible Trouble: Queer Reading at the Boundaries of Biblical Scholarship” (ed. Teresa J. Hornsby and Ken Stone; Semeia Series; SBL August 2011) and seeks to discuss commonalities and differences in feminist and queer readings. Finally, we encourage proposals or projects about “mentoring” as part of the larger collaborative effort of the NON-TRADITIONAL HERMENEUTICS programming units under the rubric of “Difference.” We seek collaborative work or demonstrations of collaboration between faculty mentors and mentees in dialogue with any non-traditional hermeneutic. In this session graduate students and more established scholars will present their work.

GENDER, SEXUALITY, AND THE BIBLE

Call For Papers: We are planning two sessions calling for papers for the Chicago meetings. FIRST SESSION: For this session, we ask: where do discussions of gender and/or sexuality or feminist approaches appear in recent manifestations of the “turn to religion” among philosophers, public media, and other interdisciplinary sites of discussion (such as Immanent Frame)? For this session, then, we seek papers that address/critique the presence or absence of gender/sexuality/feminism in forms of the turn to religion, especially in how these absences/presences feature in engagements with scripture and its afterlives. SECOND SESSION: The second session is an open session, welcoming proposals for papers on any element of research related to gender, sexuality, and the body in the study of the bible and/or antiquity, including their various afterlives and influences. Then, in conjunction with a number of other program units, Gender, Sexuality, and the Bible will host four shorter sessions on “Difference.” Papers and workshops will consider the important shift in biblical studies to attending to difference, both theoretically and practically. These sessions will explore how particular kinds of difference (e.g. historical, linguistic, racial, ethnic, cultural, gender, sexual, differently-abled, human/non-human differences) are understood, contextualized, theorized, and practiced in the Bible, in its interpretation, and in its political and religious uses. Special attention will be given to the way that cultural and literary theories of difference have recently affected biblical interpretation, such as postcolonial theory, queer theory, poststructural theory, liberation theologies, feminism, etc. The sessions will comprise a panel on difference, a “study together” session that will be open to everyone, a pedagogy session, and a mentoring session. Questions or further inquiries for any of these sessions may be directed to the chair, Joseph Marchal at josephamarchal@gmail.com

BW16

Update: I should note that this year’s International Meeting will be hosted in Amsterdam…

Abstract:Historical approaches to sexuality, in and outside of biblical studies, have tended to stress either continuities or ruptures. Yet, such approaches set a series of limits for tracing and assessing dynamics of gender, sexuality, and embodiment, where one might tap into a more resistant or disruptive strain in queer theory. A more thorough engagement with thinkers (queer and feminist) like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Judith Butler will indicate that there might be a third way to explore issues of origin, continuity, and difference in biblical argumentation. With help from queer thinkers reflecting on other eras, then, this third kind of approach can explore the many senses of “making history” by remaining invested in, but not particularly bound to historiography. The utility of such methodological reflections will be briefly demonstrated by suggesting different interpretive strategies and results for interpreting passionately-cited biblical literature like Paul’s letter to the Romans.

BW16
(h/t Mike Bird for the picture above when Google image searching “Romans 1:26″ with safe-search off.)

What I observe within the deep-set logic of such interpretive strategies is a highly phallogocentric rationalism that has become thoroughly entrenched in hetero-biological bondage. Through a lack of the queer imagination, these scholar’s assume that Mary cannot possibly have conceived without male assistance. In doing so, they end up missing the perverse irony of a virgin mother. The real miracle of Christmas is the bypassing of male in-put, in effect, the exclusion of man from the production of God-incarnate. This can also be seen as an exclusion of power through which androcentric domination is undermined (although this is arguably re-inscribed when Mary pops out a male saviour). Even Joseph’s intention to “do the right thing” and dismiss Mary quietly is undermined by his not-very-wet dream.

The bottom line, then, is that Mary conceived without sex. That is a very queer notion indeed.

The Biblical Studies Carnival

While I’m at it, here is the latest (November’s) Biblical Studies Carnival. Despite only publishing one post last month, this blog was mentioned twice! Party on.

BW16

Many readers will have cum upon this recent television advertisement for the Lynx deodorant brand. The advert re-appropriates the biblical story of Noah’s Ark (Gen 6-9) as apocalyptic imagery, while also tapping into the cultural phenomenon of 2012 to sell its new line of deodorizing man-spray. Lynx adverts typically employ (heteronormative) male sexual fantasies which involve a lone twenty-something and scrawny-built male spraying himself with Lynx and then physically attracting copious amounts of women who resemble catwalk models. It is hard to tell whether the adverts are intended to re-inscribe dominant narratives about sexual prowess as a defining category of masculinity, or to challenge them through intense irony; while the adverts are clearly taking the piss with their over-the-top portrayal of physical attraction, there is an element of vanity that the adverts penetrate into given its target demographic (pubescent teen lads worried about covering up BO so they can try for a bit of clumsy heavy-petting).

This particular advert is interesting for its use of biblical imagery, but more so for its deliberate sexualizing of biblical material. It is no secret, except in Sunday School perhaps, that the story of Noah’s ark is centrally concerned with the sexual reproduction of not only animals but also that of the human race. Noah is instructed to take his wife, and his sons to take their wives, as companions on the rainbow cruise (6:18). It is through the sexual activity of these few people that the human race is able to survive. We later find out that Noah and his sons turn out to be sexual deviants who partake in the first drunken incestuous orgy (9:20-27).

This said, the biblical text itself invites its readers to visualize the ways in which sexual interaction would have taken place on the ark. In a previous post I explored the intercourse texture of this text to suggest that given the variety of species and sexualities present on the ark, there would have been plenty of room for experimenting with multiple sexual configurations. The Lynx advert takes up this challenge by readily exploiting a common configuration of sexuality that is heavily inscribed within the biblical text, that of male-centred polygamy.

The ark features as a massive phallic symbol, drawing women to the Noah figure with the help of the Lynx spray which stops unwanted leakage. The man doesn’t have to go and collect his specimens but they willingly flock to him; the women in this re-telling are depicted as docile animals, quite an ironic and perhaps fitting image. These women will be used as empty vessels intended to carry the seed of the man who leaves his genetic imprint on all subsequent generations. It is also safe to assume that these women are “clean” (7:2). The clever pairing of the women two by two alludes to the detail of collecting “two of every kind” (6:19): two blondes, two brunettes, and so on.

As it turns out, then, this advert is in many ways a faithful re-telling of the biblical text. This is because it deliberately picks up on some of the major themes which underlie the Hebrew Bible but are often neglected, for instance the reproduction of God’s “chosen” people which, undergirded by a patriarchal world-view, centres on particular male characters. Dominant interpretations of Noah tend to fixate on his non-sexual qualities: his moral fortitude, righteous character, and so on. But this is in a sense to de-sexualize the text; he and his sons must have been men of some vigour (and many wives?) if they were able to re-populate the entire earth, especially with Noah first becoming a father at the ripe old age of five-hundred (5:32).

BW16

rainbow  (17)

bw16  (6)

sexio  (5)

hot gay jewish men naked  (3)

judas anal  (3)

rainbow texture  (3)

bw3, queer scripture  (2)

higher up and further in  (2)

nt wright heterosexist  (2)

anal texture  (2)

The Biblical Studies Carnival

The latest Bibliobloggers carnival has been released, this time chronicling the most titillating month of September. As many readers will know, a friendly feud between Gatekeeper Hurtado and myself over the “essential tools” within New Testament studies went viral and this has been well-documented in the carnival. I urge all those infected to seek immediate treatment and to next time please use protection before entering mass debates.

As an aside, Scotteriology mistakenly attributes the catchy title of the scandal, “Hurtado-Gate” to “those Sheffield guys”. I must emphatically insist that the neologism was in fact my own creation, and was spread along with the virus through our continual plugging into each others blog-sites.

BW16