A thought provoked by Miles’s column at World in which he says:
What made McCullough so different from his critics is that he maintained affection and charity towards the United States and its peoples despite its flawed history. McCullough had the courage to admire American civilization and its virtues. He understood that history is not always good versus evil or in linear directions. History is complicated. McCullough understood this in ways that much of academic history does not.
A friend of mine who works in New Testament observed to me once that if you attend a typical session on Paul at AAR/SBL you’ll hear paper after paper by Pauline scholars who despise St Paul. That’s always struck me as being horribly sad both for the scholars themselves and for their readers (not that they usually have that many) and their students.
Login to read more
Sign in or create a free account to access Subscriber-only content.
Topics:
