Considering the proportion of the text we study which are anonymous (or, in some cases or according to some scholars - nb. opinions differ and your milage may vary - pseudonymous) it seems strange to me that the majority opinion among my brothers (have any women posted about this issue? If not why not? That is not a question for them but for YOU, my [hopefully gentle] reader) is clearly that anonymous blogging is not to be countanenced. The amusing, if not always wise Bishop NT Wrong must be ostracised, cast out of biblioblogging light into the outer darkness whence she or he came!
Why?
Many of us would agree with "Frank" of The Humanitarian Chronicle that the anonymous subversive bloggers of Iran (featured in the video below) perform great services to the "democracy" we all espouse, and indeed to the openness and freedom of their repressive society. Please do not tell me that Iran is a repressive dictatorship, while biblical studies is a free open fraternal (make what you will of the choice of word) guild. We all know and sometimes admit the pressures to conform from employers, colleagues, potential employers, churches... there are thousands of good reasons why someone should blog anonymously about the Bible and its scholarly study.
So, why have you (vocally or by default) decided to disenfranchise anonymous or pseudonymous authors?
Iran: A nation of bloggers from Mr.Aaron on Vimeo.
[to Del.icio.us]
It's a tricky topic. One of our colleagues wrote a more reasonable post than I did on the topic. I'm in favor of anonymous blogging where it allows the oppressed to have a voice. But even so it takes time and discernment to decide if the voice is real.
By 
David Ker, at
March 17, 2009 5:44 PM
I'm not against anonymous blogging, except when I don't like what the anonymous blogger is saying.
Joking aside, the one thing I have trouble accepting is a blogger or anyone else who anonymously tears the work and person of someone else into bloody confetti.
But it's easy to stop. A threat to out the person who makes this his or her modus operandi is usually enough to end the defamatory impulse.
