Rob Bowman has posted two new responses to my Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium article from the latest issue of SBL Forum. The first addresses my point that the modern apologists tend to disparage the apocryphal texts as bizarre by seizing upon one or two aspects of the texts despite the fact that much of the texts are otherwise benign (thinking specifically here of Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Peter). I stated in the article: “Such focus on the ‘bizarre’ elements of the texts misrepresents their contents. There is plenty of material in the canonical texts that is bizarre or objectionable but it would be unfair to characterize Acts simply on the basis of the cursing stories, or Luke on Jesus’ disappearing act (4:30) or the sweating of blood (22:43-44), or John on its anti-Semitism.” Rob’s second post deals specifically with Anti-Semitism in John.

Rob’s posts argue that the examples I cite of “bizarre elements” in the canonical texts are not so bizarre and the charge of Anti-Semitism in John is unsubstantiated. He concedes, however, that many readers and commentators have struggled with these issues; and I think that is sufficient for my argument. These are troubling aspects of the texts, whether or not they can be tamed by exegetical athletics. Similarly, some of the “bizarre elements” in Gos. Thom. and Gos. Pet. can also be tamed or explained if one takes the time to do so. It is unfair, I think, to label Gos. Thom.…

My recent article in SBL Forum, “Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium,” has elicited some responses in the blogging community—some positive, some negative. Rob Bowman of Religious Researcher has offered the first part of a lengthy response (HERE). I appreciate the time and effort he has put into the response—indeed, the real goal of the article was to get so-called liberals and conservatives talking about the issue. I’d like now to offer my own response to Rob’s comments.

1. Rob calls his response “Defending Heresy” and accuses me of being an apologist for the Christian Apocrypha (CA). A similar charge is made by Danny Zacharias at Deinde; April DeConick, on the other hand, has come to my defense, stating, “Objectivity is not neutrality. Tony's piece in my opinion is objective. He writes as a historian who points out the Christian apologetic agenda of some popular writers who are misrepresenting other scholars' work as well as the ancient documents they are writing about. This is not neutral. Who says that neutrality is what we are after?” I am not defending heresy. If anything I am defending CA scholarship, but only because it is misrepresented, not because it is superior in any way.

2. Rob accuses me of “rhetorical gamesmanship” in the terms I use for the various writers I discuss. He takes issue with me calling them “apologists,” which he says is a “term of disapprobation.” That is not how I intended the term, …

The paper I presented at 2008 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, "Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium", appears in an edited, popularized form in the current volume of the SBL Forum. It can be accessed HERE.

I have been rereading Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace’s Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) for a paper I am writing. I was struck by one statement in particular:

“Certain narrow perspectives reign on many campuses almost without any expression of alternate viewpoints. What makes this a scandal is that educational universities, especially state universities, are supposed to be places where intellectual perspectives held by the full array of the populace represented by the schools are weighed. These public schools should not be think tanks of a singular point of view. The give-and-take of diverse viewpoints is what makes the educational experience. Yet in many universities, when it comes to religion, representation by believers within the various religious perspectives is lacking, as evidenced by the numerous students who say their faith has come under attack in courses on religion” (p. 21).

The statement shows a surprisingly misguided view of the goals and methodology of Religious Studies in the Academy. In our courses we do not seek to provide instruction, or even a forum, for all viewpoints on religion (though here by “religion,” I think the authors mean Christianity). What we do seek to do is examine religious texts and related historical events with the same scientific methodology as other university/college disciplines (e.g., literary criticism, social-scientific criticism, etc.). Religious or faith-based perspectives have no role to play in the Academy, i.e., unless it is to study these perspectives in others. …