World Magazine edited what is quoted below from
Gregg Frazer's response to
David Barton's book on Thomas Jefferson:
I find it curious on one hand and telling on the other that he refers to my arguments as “inconsequential.” It is curious because, since I wrote in response to the theme of a chapter of Barton’s book, that suggests that the subject of his own chapter is inconsequential. One cannot help but wonder why he wrote it.
It is very telling that he characterizes the fact that he used several incorrect quotes and others out of context as “inconsequential.” He says that it is the goal of beating back “the secularist progressive movement” – the cultural battle – that is “important.” I agree with his goal, but I believe that methods matter and that we must stand upon facts if we want to have any credibility and to be worthy of anyone’s attention.
3 comments:
He says that it is the goal of beating back “the secularist progressive movement” – the cultural battle – that is “important.” I agree with his goal, but I believe that methods matter and that we must stand upon facts if we want to have any credibility and to be worthy of anyone’s attention.
Glad our blog can be of service to Dr. Frazer.
Should have gone with just that part, saving the space by cutting the nitpicking about using capital "H" for "He," which as we saw, the King James Version of the Bible often doesn't either.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html
If it's any consolation, the inclusion of the edited passage would not have moved the ball much anyway, IMO. In fact, the comments section at World noted the KJV capitalization rebuttal, so that weakened Gregg's case. Live by the nitpick...
I do think David Barton's been taking notes from me, though. His only defense is that his errors are not fatal, and his major thesis, that today's "strict separationism" was not Jefferson's position, still holds up.
That his critics seem baldly out to destroy him rather than merely correct him will continue earn him sympathy and support among his supporters. Gregg's more temperate
I agree with his goal, but I believe that methods matter and that we must stand upon facts if we want to have any credibility and to be worthy of anyone’s attention.
would have been very effective, but not much the rest of what World edited out. Still, I'm glad we could help out.
You convinced me to look again at what I said and I must admit that I did not properly phrase my criticism of Barton re capitalization of pronouns.
The way it is written it does appear that my purpose is to make a statement about Jefferson. My intention, however, was to point out that Barton changed the original text in order to indicate something that Jefferson did not indicate.
It was not intended to be a proof that Jefferson did not think Jesus was God (but rather assume that based on evidence already presented); it was intended to show that Barton changed what Jefferson said in order to give a false impression.
I didn't write it well.
Yes, I didn't get that at all.
In this combox I'm more analyzing your rebuttal formally, that is, on style points. Although Barton often takes liberties--like here, caps where there are none--when you only have one or few thousand words, to a general audience such criticisms are as pinpricks, and often come off more petty than substantive [even though we know better].
And FTR, I feel the need to restate here that my defenses of Barton's work [esp in The Jefferson Lies, his worst and least defensible work since his rookie years] are most often qualified and conditional--not that I think he's right, but that his interpretation of Factoid X is sincere and at least arguably valid.
For instance, the Son of Man leading a horde of angels at Judgment Day.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/01/jesuss-second-coming-in-jefferson-bible.html
There are several valid interpretations of Jefferson including the passage, although only one can be correct. And as Jefferson is dead, we can't ask him, so...
Post a Comment