Regardless of how well Peterson’s version of these concepts fits the world, it sure looks like they fit Petterson. Evidence for seeking truth not being on the agenda is the criticism of Carrier as having an “evangelical commitment to truth”. Feminism is evident in thinking that “Gender as a Category of Knowledge” is worth discussing. And Marxism is listed as one of her skills on her page here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christina_Petterson (but gender studies and feminism are oddly absent).

I tend to assume that when someone stands up and claims there is an important enemy group I have never heard of, the alleged enemy is cherrypicked and too rare to matter. So I thought Peterson’s postmodernist/feminist/Marxist was a rare and unimportant enemy. Now it seems we found one that wasn’t indicated by Peterson, which is weak evidence I was wrong about that.

Most of her publications are in modern cultural studies (even when discussing books of the Bible—and Christian culture is definitely her central research focus—it’s often to analyze modern views on them). Apart from cultural and literary analysis, she has no peer reviewed publications in ancient history, classical languages, early Christianity, textual criticism, or anything relevant I could discern, other than books on Acts and John, which apply modern cultural and literary analysis to the text, which is at least ballpark relevant. Her dissertation was on “the role of Protestantism in the Danish colonisation of Greenland,” however, and her postgraduate research centers on “Gender as a Category of Knowledge.” So she’s sort of doing history-like things. But as best I can tell her only relevant skills are in cultural and literary analysis, and mostly of modern material, not ancient (her cv is here).

Acts of Empire largely explores modern thinkers, but in conjunction with From Tomb to Text for John, I see it has some claim to exploring the language of Acts and some other ancient history like things (a full review is here). I will assume this means she knows ancient Greek at least. I’ll emend my article to reflect this (and your other point).

Here is the blurb from her book published last year, From Tomb to Text: The Body of Jesus in the Book of John:

“The idea of writing plays a central role in John. Apart from the many references to scriptural texts, John emphasizes the role of writing in the inscription on the cross and in its own production. Petterson’s From Tomb to Text examines what this means for the understanding of the Johannine Jesus in two interrelated ways. First Petterson takes these claims to revelation through writing seriously, noting the immense effort expended by biblical scholars in order to dismiss them and to produce a canonically palatable John. With few exceptions, Johannine studies have consistently attempted to domesticate or tame John’s book through reference to, and in harmony with, an externalized historical reality or with a synoptic pattern. Second, the study suggests alternative ways of understanding John once this synoptic compulsion has been dissolved.

Petterson argues that John’s Jesus is unacceptable to the project for the recovery of ‘Early Christianity’ as imagined in Johannine research over the last 70 years or so. Instead, she shows how John produces itself as the vehicle of Jesus’ revelation in place of a body. This takes place through its use of writing, its characteristic use of verbs and syntax, and its mode of revelation. The book thus situates John in a context that does not begin with, and thus attempts to be, unconstrained by fixed categories of Christ, gnosticism, Eucharist, body and flesh, and shows how such readings curtail the fullness of the text in favour of a more familiar earthly Jesus. Petterson concludes by outlining ways in which John can be read if these containment strategies are disregarded.”

On modern interpretations of the text, not on ancient history. In other words, she writes about how books in the NT are perceived today; not on the actual ancient history or language of the text.

Exactly as I wrote (emphasis now added in case you missed it):

All her publications are in modern cultural studies (even when discussing books of the Bible—and Christian culture is definitely her central research focus—it’s only to analyze modern views on them). She has no peer reviewed publications in ancient history, classical languages, early Christianity, textual criticism, or anything relevant I could discern.

Bart Ehrman has every reason not to debate you… I don’t ever see that happening…