How Historical Misintepretations Can Become Standard Interpretations

John Woodbridge's foreword to Paul Helseth's "Right Reason" and the Princeton Mind: An Unorthodox Proposal contains a helpful recounting of how ungenerous readings of history can become the orthodox reading:

Sometimes historians cite as a heuristic stopgap measure their commitment to peer review as a means to protect them from slipping into radical personal subjectivity in historical writing.

Historical articles and books generally undergo a robust review process before they are deemed worthy contributions to the scholarly world.

Expert reviewers for university presses and scholarly journals are charged to offer ostensibly fair-minded assessments of the quality of manuscripts submitted for publication.

Then, after publication, works are further reviewed in scholarly journals. Reviewers often point out weaknesses and strengths of the publication and sometimes not suspect ideological proclivities of the author—biases that might compromise or jade the "truthfulness" of the book's central contentions.

Should well-respected reviewers concur that a particular study is genuinely superlative, their approval might propel the book toward becoming a "standard," authoritative source on the topic it addresses. Other historians who read the positive reviews may conclude that so persuasive and conclusive is the book's coverage and central argument that the need no longer exists to do further research in the field. Did not distinguished reviewers of the volume, the quality control gatekeepers for the historians' guild, put seals of approval on the newly minted "standard" interpretation?

With the passage of time, a consensus in favor of the "standard" interpretation may grow even stronger among historians. Additional studies may appear that seem to confirm its basic premises. The new "standard" interpretation takes on on the allure of a historical "orthodoxy'; that is, a received interpretation that knowledgeable scholars in the field should adopt regarding the topic under consideration. The "orthodoxy" can become so ingrained in the collective consciousness of the historical community that few historians ever contemplate doubting its validity.

In this context, any enterprising scholar who should dare to offer an alternative, "unorthodox proposal," to the effect that the "orthodox" interpretation may need serious revision, undertakes a daunting challenge. To gain a respectable hearing, he or she must offer compelling evidence and arguments in support of the claim. Longstanding "orthodoxies" of historical interpretation are not easily dislodged.

This brings us to the present study by Professor Paul Helseth, an accomplished theologian, philosopher, and historian. In his "Unorthodox Proposal," Professor Helseth, writing in the respected tradition of a gatekeeper reviewer, challenges the validity of one of the most influential "orthodox" interpretations related to the history of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

You can find out more about Helseth's very helpful book here.