It turns out that I am a revisionist. I rewrite history, correcting the standard view, particularly the standard view of the history of the interpretation of the Bible. Generally I’m all about remembering that women also read, interpreted, and wrote about the Bible. Women also did theology, wrote about it, and their books were published.
Not so long ago, I used the word “revisionist” as a derogatory term for some historical fiction, those that had a character that seemed to reflect twenty-first century views rather than those of the time period where they lived. I need a new word for that, because I think that reading our times back into history is a trap that anyone revisioning the past can fall into. It seems legitimate to revisit our understanding of history as we look at the data differently, as we find new data, and as we see ways earlier historiography was biased. It does not, however, seem legitimate to impose new or late concepts backward in time. It is difficult to avoid this as we read old texts from our present with our categories, with our own understandings of the way the world works. It seems, however, that attempting to avoid imposing our view of the world upon old texts is a key discipline in reading old books well. I refer you to C.S. Lewis The Discarded Image for some thoughts on reading medieval texts well.
In other revisionist news, I’ve just finished this book:
It is wonderful. Quantum Theory. Time Travel. Changing History. Ridiculous Acronyms. What more could you want? And Neal Stephenson. Seriously. Go get the book. Have fun.
