I agree with Mr. Clark that historians should denounce publicly scumbags like David Barton for fabricating all sorts of nonsense and then trying to pass it off as history. However, I'm also a little disturbed by what he does not say, or rather clarify, in his Patheos piece. In "Barton, Larson, Fischer: Checking in with the Liars for Jesus" he uses the term "Christian Historian" a handful of times without making clear what exactly he means by it.
If he means to reference historians who specialize in religious history, specifically Christianity, that's fine. If he means individuals who are Christians first and "historians" second then that is a problem. It may seem a subtle difference but it is not. If you are a historian you apply the standards and principles of historical research regardless of the specific topic. If you can not do so for personal or ideological reasons you are not an historian, period. Even with the best of intentions and/or credentials such individuals should be more accurately labeled propagandists or apologists, not historians.
No comments:
Post a Comment