Heresy Hunting or Hunting for History?

Your critique here seems to miss Tony's main point (I believe), and that is that books aimed at apologetics in the modern context are focused more on the apology than they are on a rigorously historical or literary approaches to early Christian writings. The historical side of things suffers for the sake of a modern agenda, at times. Tony, I believe, is calling for a less invested approach to doing history, and he would likely agree that that call holds for anyone that puts a priority on his or her modern theological/ideological agendas (fundamentalist, evangelical, liberal, radical, atheist or whatever other category) over doing careful history. He just happens to deal with conservative scholars who approach the apocrypha for popular Christian audiences, since they are the ones being dismissive of certain ancient documents that are important for understanding the history of early Christianity. I think this call for better history on all sides (in this case dealing with conservative scholars) and the critique of the books in question is legitimate, in part, because the scholars in question (e.g. Wright, Witherington, Bock, and others) present their apologetic arguments as though they are historically accurate or grounded. These are some of my impressions of the value in what Tony says in that article, but much more could be said.

Phil Harland

Prof. Wallace,

always a pleasure to hear from you...

I agree with you, Phil, that that was Burke's main point. And it is something that all scholars of ancient Christian texts should affirm to a large degree. At the same time, I don't think that he just happened to be focusing on conservative groups, nor that he even came close to understanding what some of these modern authors were saying. Numerous times he misrepresented their views rather widely. Saying that the modern conservative scholars (which, by the way, is a word he uses only rarely of conservatives and frequently of liberals, including folks who really are not scholars) don't want the CA to be read or that they only cite literature that agrees with their views is simply not true.

It is well known that in the history of Christianity those who have considered themselves part of the “orthodox” faith have often tried to suppress writings considered as “unorthodox.” Burke’s article demonstrates that this struggle continues in the contemporary scene. While I think the “orthodox” desire to “defend the faith” in this age as it has been defended in ages past is reasonable, I also think the complete way in which “unorthodox” texts are rejected is impoverishing for “orthodox” religiosity. There is no doubt that many of the ideas in various “unorthodox” texts are amendable to the “orthodox” faith. It is certainly true that many sayings and stories preserved in “unorthodox” texts had a wider spectrum of influence than the “unorthodox” communities that preserved them. Surly much religious material that was also used in “orthodox” communities has only been preserved in “unorthodox” texts. I can never understand why the “orthodox” insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Why not redact “unorthodox” texts to bring them in line with “orthodox” standards? What harm could be done to the “orthodox” faith by incorporating additional material into their respective religious corpus as long as that material remains in line with their overarching rule of faith? I am not suggesting that such additional materials be made canonical, but only that they be rescued out of the rubbish heap and given a status that recognizes their helpfulness for further enriching the lives of those under the care of an “orthodox” ecclesiastical structure.
I have spent a good amount of time in circles of those who consider themselves “orthodox,” but I have never heard any of these ideas discussed. It is typically not even considered how ideas in “unorthodox” writings might serve to enrich and even reinforce “orthodox” faith. Of course, those who consider the label “orthodox” to be artificial will probably be less than happy with the notion that those who consider themselves as “orthodox” would enter other texts in order to pillage them for material that is amendable to the “orthodox” faith. However, no one can expect “orthodox” Christians to give up their faith, and any sort of wide-scale engagement with “unorthodox” texts is better than no engagement at all. On the other hand, I imaging that those of the “orthodox” faith will be less than happy that they may need to actually read and then undemonize entire books and admit that some of the material, properly filtered, can be helpful in a church context.

I think what frustrated me the most about reading Tony's article is that he accused evangelical scholars of doing what my experience in the academy for the last thirty years has shown me happens far more often in liberal than evangelical circles.  No evangelical wanting a Ph.D. dissertation passed or a work of peer-reviewed scholarship published can get away with ignoring the full range of scholarship on a topic or interacting in detail and with charity with all the ancient sources, orthodox or unorthodox, canonical or apocryphal.  But the radical revisionists who deem the unorthodox sources earlier or more central or more valuable to the tradition than most routinely ignore evangelical scholarship and pour scorn on us.  Every once in awhile it gets so frustrating that our tone starts to sound just a little bit like our critics, which I think has happened in some of the sources Tony cites, though certainly not in most.  Now had the piece been about typical grass-roots evangelical church life, then many of Tony's points (like John Edwards' above) would be justified, though some of us are working to try to change that.  But it wasn't, so they weren't.

interesting post, thanks for sharing it, especially since i couldn't fork out the dough to make the long trip to the conferences this year on a student's budget.

although subjects taken up for apologetic purposes often display iffy methodology and a limited skill set, the "bad" shouldn't undermine and negate the well done ones. these apologetic works, even in this arena, are warranted because of the haphazard certainty marketed to the public. initially we are just so certain that we have a jesus tomb, or a suppressed gospel, or an accurate reconstruction of historical power-plays by big movers in the early church. scholars are so certain they have undermined "orthodox" christianity.

anyone against apologetic works taking up these areas should probably first hear them sympathetically and take a closer look at what exactly it is they are combatting. sometimes fire breeds fire.

again, thank you for the post. i'm intrigued that this issue came up this year, but not surprised