This decade, biblical scholars blogging (or ‘biblioblogging’) has taken off dramatically. There are over 100 biblioblogs and many are widely read. They are an invaluable resource for understanding the ideological locations of scholarship, not least because scholars openly talk about broader cultural and political issues in addition to ‘standard’ biblical studies. Developing Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s political analysis of the mass media and intellectuals (the ‘Propaganda Model’), I previously looked at the ways in which bibliobloggers (consciously or unconsciously) replicate mass media support for elite political culture and dominant political trends in Anglo-American foreign policy (esp. Middle East), with dissenting views ignored or rejected. This included analysis of how these political trends have affected biblical interpretation of bibliobloggers and how these trends are reflected in biblical studies more broadly (Crossley, Jesus in an Age of Terror [2008], ch. 2). Unavailable at the time of publication was the only serious subverting of this model among bibliobloggers: the widely discussed, satirical and pseudonymous blog, ‘N. T. Wrong’ (retired January 2009). ‘N. T. Wrong’ was in many ways the polar opposite of the dominant political trends found among the bibliobloggers and so this paper will look at the ways ‘N. T. Wrong’ subverted these trends, particularly through use of a pseudonym and humour. However, the reception of ‘N. T. Wrong’ also shows how these dominant trends remain deeply embedded in biblioblogging and scholarship. ‘N. T. Wrong’ is the exception that proves the rule and the radical political content of the blog and biblical interpretation has regularly been ignored or rejected, despite being as widely discussed as any biblioblog. Yet ‘N. T. Wrong’ has shown ways to challenge the political assumptions of the bibliobloggers and at least deserves to be recognized as the first brilliant twenty-first century biblical studies spoof.