It was a slow day, so I thought, hey, why not smack David Barton around? Serious version here, fun version here. Kudos to Warren Throckmorton, who caught Barton red-handed in yet another whopper of a bogus historical claim.
Ugh, yes. I really do think that after that book catastrophe, the smart thing to do would have been to try another tack for a while! I can’t see how he gets to the 1500 unless he somehow considers every single usage of the text under discussion as a separate citation of the Scriptures. I mean, I’m happy to back the “Locke seriously intended to demonstrate that his work was compatible with Christianity” and even “Locke probably believed he was generally remaining within a broad construction of CofE orthodoxy,” but Locke was no theonomist.
Counting each mention of a verse still doesn’t get you far. Goldie’s index makes it really easy to check. I think Warren is on the right track. Locke mentioned the book of Proverbs, which (Warren says) has 900 verses. Could you then get 579 verses from six chapters? Maybe. I’m too lazy to look it up.
You know what I suspect? An intern somewhere deep in the bowels of the Wallbuilders dungeon was asked to use the scripture index to come up with a verse count, and he had the bright idea. Barton was handed the 1,500 number without context and ran with it. Plausible theory, anyway.
Let’s also not forget the issue of interpolation. The number of places where the scripture reference was supplied by the editor is not small.
Heh. I do recall thinking, when reading my way through Modern Western philosophy in my teens, that Locke’s First Treatise was unusually focussed on exegesis. But that 1500 just won’t wash. Perhaps every sentence that mentioned a Biblical phrase or name counted? Anyway, I agree, it’s probably a number without any clear foundation at all. 83% of statistics being made up, and all, y’know….
“Wallbuilders”? OK, I really never had any reason to take notice of them, so now I’ve clicked over to the site. First thought: who suggested the name? I mean, I see the Nehemiah reference on the About page, but how could they possibly enter a public conversation in which “wall of separation of church and state” is a frequent canard, and not realize how needlessly confusing that name would be?
But that was the point; I remember an eager disciple explaining to me how they were going to coopt the image from the other side. It’s just like Judo! Or something like that. Admittedly I wasn’t paying close attention.
Ugh, yes. I really do think that after that book catastrophe, the smart thing to do would have been to try another tack for a while! I can’t see how he gets to the 1500 unless he somehow considers every single usage of the text under discussion as a separate citation of the Scriptures. I mean, I’m happy to back the “Locke seriously intended to demonstrate that his work was compatible with Christianity” and even “Locke probably believed he was generally remaining within a broad construction of CofE orthodoxy,” but Locke was no theonomist.
Counting each mention of a verse still doesn’t get you far. Goldie’s index makes it really easy to check. I think Warren is on the right track. Locke mentioned the book of Proverbs, which (Warren says) has 900 verses. Could you then get 579 verses from six chapters? Maybe. I’m too lazy to look it up.
You know what I suspect? An intern somewhere deep in the bowels of the Wallbuilders dungeon was asked to use the scripture index to come up with a verse count, and he had the bright idea. Barton was handed the 1,500 number without context and ran with it. Plausible theory, anyway.
Let’s also not forget the issue of interpolation. The number of places where the scripture reference was supplied by the editor is not small.
Heh. I do recall thinking, when reading my way through Modern Western philosophy in my teens, that Locke’s First Treatise was unusually focussed on exegesis. But that 1500 just won’t wash. Perhaps every sentence that mentioned a Biblical phrase or name counted? Anyway, I agree, it’s probably a number without any clear foundation at all. 83% of statistics being made up, and all, y’know….
“Wallbuilders”? OK, I really never had any reason to take notice of them, so now I’ve clicked over to the site. First thought: who suggested the name? I mean, I see the Nehemiah reference on the About page, but how could they possibly enter a public conversation in which “wall of separation of church and state” is a frequent canard, and not realize how needlessly confusing that name would be?
But that was the point; I remember an eager disciple explaining to me how they were going to coopt the image from the other side. It’s just like Judo! Or something like that. Admittedly I wasn’t paying close attention.