Metaxas: “Some Guy Wrote a 6-Part Series”

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz speaks with moderator Eric Metaxas at the National Religious Broadcasters Annual Convention at Oryland in Nashville

Head over to Warren Throckmorton’s blog and listen to Eric Metaxas mock me on his radio program for my 6-part critique of his book.  He and Ann Coulter have a good laugh over the fact that there are errors in their recent books.

Here is Metaxas:

There are errors in my book and people have written ESSAYS–I’m not even kidding.  People have attacked my book so much. This never happened to me before. They take a sentence that I could just change that sentence and everything would be okay.  They have written ESSAYS about this sentence.  I said something about freedom in our early days, implying that it was universal, which of course it was not (we had a lot of problems with religious freedom)–peoplek have written essays and essays.  Some guy wrote a 6-part blog thing, 4000 words criticizing my book. There’s another thing–oh–that I misinterpret John Winthrop when he says that we are a shining city on a hill–Jesus’s words–and he says I misinterpreted them.  In fact, I did not misinterpret it. But even if I had it is not worth and ESSAY correcting me

To get the full effect (and the sarcasm and smugness in Metaxas’s voice) you really need to LISTEN to the exchange with Coulter.  It is only about one minute long.

4 thoughts on “Metaxas: “Some Guy Wrote a 6-Part Series”

  1. Metaxas is trying to brush off the criticism of his book by calling some parts of it an error. It wasn’t an error. It was a deliberate effort to write something about the past that would fit into the narrative that his target audience wanted to believe. The guy wrote what a specific group of people wanted to read. He is not writing to expand people’s knowledge. He is writing to make money off of gullible people.

    Metaxas is a poor example of a historian, if he should even be called one. Historians develop an interpretation using facts regardless of what the audience desires. Metaxas wrote a book to fit his audience’s already existing beliefs and mangled the facts to do so. There’s a huge difference.


  2. Well, Metaxas is arguing–as have I–that blowing a factoid or phrasing one poorly does not make one’s entire thesis invalid.

    One thing I have noticed among “collegial” historians is that in their reviews of each other, when they’re of ideological compatibility inaccuracies are noted, but very charitably. But where there is animus, every error is unforgivable and becomes the main story rather than the larger thesis.

    Now at least you’ve acknowledged Metaxas’s thesis, John. There are others mentioned here that ignore it exists. They seek out only error, not truth.


  3. Thanks for your efforts with this John! May God instill in us a desire to know where the truth resides. The ancient Greeks liked to say mathein pathein: to learn is to suffer. True learning requires putting yourself in the position of being corrected. Anything less is mere propaganda.


  4. At least he didn’t go as far as Barton and say that those who oppose him hate America. I suppose that’s good?

    However, Metaxes’ comments make it clear that he didn’t listen to any real criticism. Change one sentence and have everything be OK? No, Metaxes, because that one sentence (if such a sentence exists) probably forms the underpinning of your entire argument.

    Furthermore, the arrogance is appalling. “I didn’t misinterpret Winthrop’s words, but even if I did, it doesn’t warrant an essay.” I have no words.


Comments are closed.