Modern Heresy Hunters at the SBL
November 15th, 2007 by 
Tony
Today is the day that all the bibliobloggers give their “I’m off to SBL” post. And I’m no exception. I will be presenting a paper during one of the Christian Apocrypha sessions. The paper is a synthesis of my reading and ruminating about modern Anti-Apocrypha polemic (see previous posts accessible through the side-bar on the left). Here is the abstract of the paper:
The popularity of Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code has led to a surge of attacks on Christian Apocryphal literature by conservative NT scholars (e.g., Ben Witherington III, Craig Evans, Darrell L. Bock). The work of these scholars is transparently polemical—for example, Evans states that his book, Fabricating Jesus, was written “to defend the original witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus” (p. 17). And their methods are not new; indeed they use the same rhetorical strategies employed by such early heresiologists as Irenaeus, including the use of sarcasm and invective to describe their opponents, the intentional misrepresentation of the heretics’/scholars’ views and the content of the primary texts, the excerpting of material from the texts in order to expose their absurdities, and the demonization of their opponents by associating them with the powers of darkness. “Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium” illustrates the parallels between modern critics and the ancient heresy hunters but focuses particularly on how the two groups use and abuse the apocryphal texts. Perhaps we can learn from the contemporary debate something about the reception of the Christian Apocrypha in antiquity.
I decided to read the finished product in my ongoing Wednesday evening New Testament Apocrypha course. The students were required to complete a book review of Darrell Bock’s The Missing Gospels. The paper launched into a discussion of Bock’s book. From what I gathered from the discussion, the students on-the-whole were not favourable toward the book. Perhaps this is due to being bombarded by primarily liberal points-of-view on the texts over the past three months; perhaps they hope to do well on the review if they adopt what they expect me to say about it; perhaps they are all just really bright.
The principal objection was towards Bock’s bias. They see the book as aimed at a believing audience who want Bock to provide them comfort, to prove for them that the Jesus of the “alternative gospels” is not the true Jesus. They identified certain rhetorical strategies used by Bock to show the superiority of the “traditional Jesus” (i.e., the Jesus of the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers), primarily because these texts are considered the earliest sources and also because Bock believes the traditional views of authorship of the texts are genuine. The students would have preferred it if Bock made this bias more transparent at the beginning of his book.
I have plenty of objections to the book, and to similar works by Witherington, Jenkins, Evans, etc., but these can be found in the earlier posts and the SBL paper. One thing I did mention in class is my frustration at how these authors and their opponents (the Christian Apocrypha scholars) avoid communicating with one another. I had hoped to have one of the apologetic authors respond to my paper at the SBL, but efforts to do so have failed. It might have made for a more animated discussion.
When I return from San Diego I will offer a post mortem of my session, as well as some comments on other CA-related papers.
Posted in Anti-CA Apologetic, 2007 NTA Course | 
| Permalink
November 17th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I guess I was one of the few who did not mind Bock’s book. To me, it was flawed but valuable since it added a nice level of balance to apocryphal debate. Certaintly, he was biased and was peddling his point of view, but I did not find it any different than other forms of scholarly discussion on the matter. They say you never talk to strangers about religion or politics since everyone has an opinion. This is what makes objectivity near impossible in religious studies, and also makes apocrypha scholarship more interesting.
Personally, I think every author should take the time at the beginning of their work to explain their point of view (whether they are liberal or conservative). I was extremely tempted to do that in my book review but decided against it since I did not want to break the grain of previous scholarship. But despite this, I think it’s essential to look at Bock’s book in this light - he commits the sin of bias, but so does everyone else.
Furthermore, I do think Bock brings up good points of consideration. Whether they are proven beyond a shadow of the doubt (he covers way too much to give justice to each section), they still are valid ideas. Orthodoxy in early Christianity is hard to evaluate - not saying Bock is completely right in his portrayal of orthodoxy as the major view, but on the other hand orthodoxy as one of many equal views that managed to win out plays more to conspiracy theory rather then evaluation of the sources. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.
What I am curious about is how the New Testamtent Gospels are used as historical documents? If we can assume they are the earliest, then what can they tell people about the historical Jesus without getting drawn out into a religious debate?
Cheers,
Joshua
P.S.: I’m a somewhat Catholic (somewhat = long story). I say this so everyone can know that despite my attempts at being objective, I still probably commit the cardinal sin of being biased.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I would enjoy reading your paper. Are you going to make it available on the site?
November 20th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Dear Joshua
I enjoyed reading your comments. Bock’s argument in favour of a first century Christian orthodoxy is quite intriguing, yet his book, The Missing Gospels, is much too short for him to adequately explain his reasoning. He is more concerned with discrediting Apocrypha than making a strong argument for a very early orthodoxy. I would disagree with your statement that “truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.” Sometimes in scholarship one view is absolutely true. It may be completely true that orthodoxy won out because it was the view held by the majority of Christians, a majority who traced their roots directly to the apostles. Or maybe this view is completely false, and thus Ireaneus and the apologists constructed the orthodoxy. As well, the New Testament Gospels can certainly be used to construct the historical Jesus. They, for example, reveal that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. There may be very limited historical sources outside the Gospels, but this seems quite logical since the Christian movement, in the beginning, was an underground movement and predominately made up of the lower echelons of Roman society.
Dear Dr. Chartrand-Burke
I second Eric’s comments. It would be great if you added your paper to your site.
Matt Grant
November 21st, 2007 at 1:17 am
Dear Matt,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that sometimes one view can be absolutely true. I was more referring to the other times when the truth can be in the middle, which I believe is a valid way to look at orthodoxy in early Christianity (just as a personal interpretation from the materials I have read).
I could be wrong of course, but the view that apologists constructed orthodoxy can appear to imply a conspiracy of some sort. It could be more apt to say that orthodoxy was a popular view, but clearly not the only Christian view. This is a form of middle ground between the conservative position that orthodoxy was the most prominent perspective and the liberal position that there was a plethora of paradigms that orthodoxy killed off for political gain.
Cheers,
Joshua
Dr. Mr. Chartrand-Burke,
I third.