See Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2007); Roland Boer, Secularism and Biblical Studies (London/ Oakville: Equinox, 2010); Jacques Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

See Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2007); Roland Boer, Secularism and Biblical Studies (London/ Oakville: Equinox, 2010); Jacques Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001).

Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

William Bicksler, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Oak Ridge: Holy Fire, 2005), pp. 42–43; Lewis S. Johnson, “‘God Gave Them Up’: A Study in Divine Retribution,” Master’s Seminary Journal 21 (2010), pp. 21–29.

William Bicksler, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Oak Ridge: Holy Fire, 2005), pp. 42–43; Lewis S. Johnson, “‘God Gave Them Up’: A Study in Divine Retribution,” Master’s Seminary Journal 21 (2010), pp. 21–29.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See also Evan Lenow, “Exchanging the Natural for the Unnatural: Homosexuality’s Distortion of God’s Design,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 49 (2006), pp. 31–47.

See also Evan Lenow, “Exchanging the Natural for the Unnatural: Homosexuality’s Distortion of God’s Design,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 49 (2006), pp. 31–47.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

David Edwin Eagle, “Pneumatological Ecclesiology and Same-Sex Marriage: A Non-Essentialist Approach Using the Work of Eugene Rogers and John Zizioulas,” Conrad Grebel Review 28 (2010), pp. 43–68. Most influential from this perspective has been Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Walter Wink (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), pp. 33–49. The problem with such approaches, as I shall show below, is that they may be gay-friendly but they are definitely anti-queer.

David Edwin Eagle, “Pneumatological Ecclesiology and Same-Sex Marriage: A Non-Essentialist Approach Using the Work of Eugene Rogers and John Zizioulas,” Conrad Grebel Review 28 (2010), pp. 43–68. Most influential from this perspective has been Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Walter Wink (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for the Churches (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), pp. 33–49. The problem with such approaches, as I shall show below, is that they may be gay-friendly but they are definitely anti-queer.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For instance, see Martin Stowasser, “Homosexualität und Bibel: Exegetische und Hermeneutische Überlegungen zu Einem Schwierigen Thema,” New Testament Studies 43:4 (1997), pp. 503–26. Jewett’s commentary is paradigmatic; his uncritical use of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” terminology leads him to argue that Paul restricted all “sexual relations to married heterosexual partners” (Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary [Hermeneia. A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006], p. 181). For Jewett, Paul’s position is rooted in a Jewish tradition that leads him to opposse exploitative Roman practices: “Paul’s language served to remove any vestige of decency, honor, or friendship from same-sex relation. Neither distinguishing pederasty from relationships between adult, consenting males, nor distinguishing between active and passive parterns as Roman culture was inclined to do, Paul simply follows the line of his Jewish cultural tradition by construing the entire realm of homosexual relations as evidence that divine wrath was active therein” (ibid., p. 179).

For instance, see Martin Stowasser, “Homosexualität und Bibel: Exegetische und Hermeneutische Überlegungen zu Einem Schwierigen Thema,” New Testament Studies 43:4 (1997), pp. 503–26. Jewett’s commentary is paradigmatic; his uncritical use of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” terminology leads him to argue that Paul restricted all “sexual relations to married heterosexual partners” (Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary [Hermeneia. A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006], p. 181). For Jewett, Paul’s position is rooted in a Jewish tradition that leads him to opposse exploitative Roman practices: “Paul’s language served to remove any vestige of decency, honor, or friendship from same-sex relation. Neither distinguishing pederasty from relationships between adult, consenting males, nor distinguishing between active and passive parterns as Roman culture was inclined to do, Paul simply follows the line of his Jewish cultural tradition by construing the entire realm of homosexual relations as evidence that divine wrath was active therein” (ibid., p. 179). )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Bernadette J. Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). Boswell is a case in point here since, on one hand, he sees a continuum in terms of sexualities between the present and the past and, on the other hand, considers that Romans 1 refers to “heterosexual men” performing “homosexual acts” (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980], p. 110). As will become clear in the course of my argument, this is precisely the problem in the continuist/discontinuist debate as it approves of gay sex even as it stigmatizes “queer sex.”

Bernadette J. Brooten, Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). Boswell is a case in point here since, on one hand, he sees a continuum in terms of sexualities between the present and the past and, on the other hand, considers that Romans 1 refers to “heterosexual men” performing “homosexual acts” (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980], p. 110). As will become clear in the course of my argument, this is precisely the problem in the continuist/discontinuist debate as it approves of gay sex even as it stigmatizes “queer sex.” )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Brooten, Love between Women, pp. 18–23.

Brooten, Love between Women, pp. 18–23. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., pp. 361–62.

Martin, “Heterosexism and the interpretation of Romans 1:18–32,” p. 137. This later point has been argued by Fredrickson who, focussing on the uses of “natural” and “unnatural” passions, interprets Paul’s postion as concerned with self-control and concludes that “unnatural use, from this perspective, has less to do with the gender of the persons having sex and more with the loss of self-control experienced by the user of another’s body” (David Fredrickson, “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24–27,” in David Balch [ed.], Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], pp. 197–241 [207]). Notice here, once again, how a supposedly gay-friendly argument has anti-queer consequences.

Martin, “Heterosexism and the interpretation of Romans 1:18–32,” p. 137. This later point has been argued by Fredrickson who, focussing on the uses of “natural” and “unnatural” passions, interprets Paul’s postion as concerned with self-control and concludes that “unnatural use, from this perspective, has less to do with the gender of the persons having sex and more with the loss of self-control experienced by the user of another’s body” (David Fredrickson, “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24–27,” in David Balch [ed.], Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], pp. 197–241 [207]). Notice here, once again, how a supposedly gay-friendly argument has anti-queer consequences.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Jeramy Townsley, “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23–28,” JBL 130 (2011), pp. 707–28.

Jeramy Townsley, “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23–28,” JBL 130 (2011), pp. 707–28.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., p. 728. Townsley’s contribution is a paradigmatic example of the lack of engagement with critical theory in biblical studies. Although the concept of “queer” is central to his arguments, Townsley does not even acknowledge the main contributions in queer studies. When he concludes that we cannot infer the general content of Paul’s beliefs about sexual orientations in order to condemn “queer relationships,” his conflation of “queer” and “homosexual” forecloses virtual identifications between queers in the present and queers in the past.

Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), pp. 74–76.

Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), pp. 74–76.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction (New York: Vintage, 1990), p. 43. Foucault posited different points of origin for “homosexuality” in different works (see Didier Eribon, “Michel Foucault’s Histories of Sexuality,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7 [2001], pp. 31–86). Furthermore, the now classical distinction between “acts” and “identities,” as Foucauldian scholarship has shown, has been affixed to that first volume of The History of Sexuality by later debate (see Lynne Huffer, Mad for Foucault: Rethinking the Foundations of Queer Theory [New York: Columbia University Press, 2010], pp. 67–82).

Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction (New York: Vintage, 1990), p. 43. Foucault posited different points of origin for “homosexuality” in different works (see Didier Eribon, “Michel Foucault’s Histories of Sexuality,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7 [2001], pp. 31–86). Furthermore, the now classical distinction between “acts” and “identities,” as Foucauldian scholarship has shown, has been affixed to that first volume of The History of Sexuality by later debate (see Lynne Huffer, Mad for Foucault: Rethinking the Foundations of Queer Theory [New York: Columbia University Press, 2010], pp. 67–82).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction, p. 43.

Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction, p. 43. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 3.

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 3.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 3.

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 3.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), p. 8.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), p. 8.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 12.

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 12.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, p. 23.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, p. 23.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, p. 24.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, p. 24.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, p. 45.

Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, p. 45. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Madhavi Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 2.

Madhavi Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 2.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Madhavi Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 3.

Madhavi Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 3.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Madhavi Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 5. In the same way, Bersani argues that “the mobility of desires defeats the project of fixing identity by way of a science of desires” (Leo Bersani, Homos [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995], p. 107).

Madhavi Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 5. In the same way, Bersani argues that “the mobility of desires defeats the project of fixing identity by way of a science of desires” (Leo Bersani, Homos [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995], p. 107).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film, p. 5.

Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film, p. 5.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film, p. 18.

Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film, p. 18.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film, p. 19. Such critique does not apply exclusively to studies of desire across time but also across space. Much of contemporary queer anthropology on diaspora and alien sexualities relies on the category of the “different” in order to pursue aboriginal concepts detached from “our time and space.” These strategies not only can be accused of orientalism but work to consistently keep “our” time and space as “normal” and unexamined. For an illustration of such “otherization,” see the otherwise excellent study by Don Kulick, Travesti: Sex, Gender, and Culture among Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

Menon, Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film, p. 19. Such critique does not apply exclusively to studies of desire across time but also across space. Much of contemporary queer anthropology on diaspora and alien sexualities relies on the category of the “different” in order to pursue aboriginal concepts detached from “our time and space.” These strategies not only can be accused of orientalism but work to consistently keep “our” time and space as “normal” and unexamined. For an illustration of such “otherization,” see the otherwise excellent study by Don Kulick, Travesti: Sex, Gender, and Culture among Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 17.

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 17.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cathy Reback and Sherry Larkins, “Maintaining a Heterosexual Identity: Sexual Meanings Among a Sample of Heterosexually Identified Men Who Have Sex with Men,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 39 (2010), pp. 766–73.

Cathy Reback and Sherry Larkins, “Maintaining a Heterosexual Identity: Sexual Meanings Among a Sample of Heterosexually Identified Men Who Have Sex with Men,”Archives of Sexual Behavior 39 (2010), pp. 766–73.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 140; emphasis mine.

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 140; emphasis mine.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 196 n. 3.

Halperin, How to Do the History of Homosexuality, p. 196 n. 3.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Gender Criticism: What Isn’t Gender?” The Homepage of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick at Duke University. 2 Feb 2012. Accessible at <http://www.duke.edu/~sedgwic/WRITING/gender.htm>.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Gender Criticism: What Isn’t Gender?” The Homepage of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick at Duke University. 2 Feb 2012. Accessible at <http://www.duke.edu/~sedgwic/WRITING/gender.htm>. )| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See Carla Freccero, Queer/Early/Modern (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006); “Queer Times,” in Janet E. Halley and Andrew Parker (eds.), After Sex?: On Writing Since Queer Theory (Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2011), p. 19.

See Carla Freccero, Queer/Early/Modern (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006); “Queer Times,” in Janet E. Halley and Andrew Parker (eds.), After Sex?: On Writing Since Queer Theory (Durham/London: Duke University Press, 2011), p. 19.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Marchal, “‘Making History’ Queerly: Touches across Time through a Biblical Behind,” pp. 394–95.

Marchal, “‘Making History’ Queerly: Touches across Time through a Biblical Behind,” pp. 394–95.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Fradenburg and Freccero, “Introduction,” p. xvii. Dinshaw suggests that instead of conceiving historical periods as the beads of a rosary, we would be better served by returning to Benjamin’s image of the “constellation” as a metaphor illustrating the ways in which past events relate to each other and to the present as “starry lights” shining at different times and in different places even as they are perceived at once (Dinshaw, Getting Medieval, p. 18). The work of the historian then, she adds, consists of “making pleasurable connections in a context of postmodern indeterminacy” (ibid., p. 36).

Fradenburg and Freccero, “Introduction,” p. xvii. Dinshaw suggests that instead of conceiving historical periods as the beads of a rosary, we would be better served by returning to Benjamin’s image of the “constellation” as a metaphor illustrating the ways in which past events relate to each other and to the present as “starry lights” shining at different times and in different places even as they are perceived at once (Dinshaw, Getting Medieval, p. 18). The work of the historian then, she adds, consists of “making pleasurable connections in a context of postmodern indeterminacy” (ibid., p. 36).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See here Marcella Althaus-Reid, The Queer God (London/New York: Routledge, 2003); Marcella Althaus-Reid and Lisa Isherwood, “Thinking Theology and Queer Theory,” Feminist Theology 15/3 (2007), pp. 302–14.

See here Marcella Althaus-Reid, The Queer God (London/New York: Routledge, 2003); Marcella Althaus-Reid and Lisa Isherwood, “Thinking Theology and Queer Theory,” Feminist Theology 15/3 (2007), pp. 302–14.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Traub, The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England, p. 12. Traub later explains the openness of such a version of historicism: “Balancing the claims of continuity and alterity within a historically specific study, I have tried to keep open the question of the relationship of present identities to past cultural formations – assuming neither that we will find in the past a mirror image of ourselves nor that the past is so utterly alien that we will find nothing usable in its fragmentary traces” (ibid., p. 32). Susan McCabe, entertaining the possibility of a queer historicism, emphasizes that “history is riddled by multiple desires,” and envisions the purpose of the historicizing task as “locating ‘identification’ (rather than identity), modes of being and having, in historical contexts” (Susan McCabe, “TO BE AND TO HAVE, The Rise of Queer Historicism,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 11 [2005], pp. 119–34 [120–21]).

Traub, The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England, p. 12. Traub later explains the openness of such a version of historicism: “Balancing the claims of continuity and alterity within a historically specific study, I have tried to keep open the question of the relationship of present identities to past cultural formations – assuming neither that we will find in the past a mirror image of ourselves nor that the past is so utterly alien that we will find nothing usable in its fragmentary traces” (ibid., p. 32). Susan McCabe, entertaining the possibility of a queer historicism, emphasizes that “history is riddled by multiple desires,” and envisions the purpose of the historicizing task as “locating ‘identification’ (rather than identity), modes of being and having, in historical contexts” (Susan McCabe, “TO BE AND TO HAVE, The Rise of Queer Historicism,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 11 [2005], pp. 119–34 [120–21]).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation