Is it scholarly?

Depends on who you ask. I believe it is an excellent record of our Baptist Heritage, but then you have those who won't accept God's Word as truth, why would they accept a historical record as accurate?

We owe much to our Baptist Forefathers and need to thank God for them, for it through them we have the truth today!

Ernie

 

The Trail of Blood is a much debated book and its "scholarship" is often attacked. I think that to understand this one must consider the purpose of the book. In my opinion it is a "popular" rather than "scholarly" work. By this I do not necessarily mean it is inaccurate. But, in my opinion, Carroll is not trying to do exhaustive historical research, but rather trying to provide information to Baptists that will make them appreciate their heritage (in a short easy-to-read book). It has been a long time since I read the book, but I seem to remember that much of it is based on secondary, rather than primary, sources. Again, this does not mean Carroll is wrong or that the history is incorrect. It just means he relied on what others said rather than doing the research himself. For a work with the same viewpoint presented in a more "scholarly" fashion, one should check out "A History of the Baptists" by John T. Christian. When one starts hearing all the "anathemas" against the Trail of Blood, it would do well to remember that J. M. Carroll was a highly respected leader and educator among turn of the century Southern Baptists. Whether he was right or wrong in his presentation of Baptist history in the Trail of Blood, he was no nincompoop! All that being said, my opinion is that his basic premise is sound with some historical inaccuracies.

You might also want to read an old topic on Excerpts from the Trail of Blood.

 

I would add the ToB should be thought of as a Reader's Digest version of Baptist History. Or if you will compare it to a booklet that covers US History. Both are useful for their purposes, but neither pretends to be an exhaustive treatment of their topic.
Brother Rob

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Rob Fall ]

 

I don't know any baptist historians on my side of the baptist fence who give it the tiniest bit of credibility. It's the product of the same sort of militant anti-Catholicism that we see rearing it's head here on occasion.

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me, the Trail of Blood is too simplistic. It claims a "spiritual kinship" of me today with some groups that were shakey at best (I am being kind).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately, there are present day Baptists that are shaky at best with whom we must claim at least an historical, if not "spiritual", kinship . But you are right, Bob, ToB is too simplistic (to be fair, the purposes of the book probably require that it be simplistic). The most we can claim to know about some of the groups are that they were rebaptizers and that they were separate from the "Catholic Church".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know any baptist historians on my side of the baptist fence who give it the tiniest bit of credibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Joshua, what I tried to get CorpseNoMore to admit in the above-mentioned old topic is that the historians "on your side of the fence" are affected by ecumenism (whether consciously or subconsiously) as much as the historians on the "other side of the fence" are affected by separatism.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Joshua, what I tried to get CorpseNoMore to admit in the above-mentioned old topic is that the historians "on your side of the fence" are affected by ecumenism (whether consciously or subconsiously) as much as the historians on the "other side of the fence" are affected by separatism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think any of those historians. Glenn Hinson, Buddy Shurden, and my own Baptist History prof. Loyd Allen - all are very ecumenical in their writings. Personally, I believe that gives them more credibility, but it's all in where you stand .

Joshua

 

Joshua, I think you may have left something out in the first part of your sentence. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But I do think I understand your overall meaning as quoted below:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Personally, I believe that (ecumenism, rlv) gives them more credibility...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I feel that it is a mistake to judge a person's credibility as a historian based on his theological viewpoint. But I do think our theological viewpoints do affect our interpretation of certain available historical facts, documents, etc.

 

Yup, I got distracted by my three-year-old mid-post. That should have been something to the effect that I don't think those historians would deny that they take an ecumenical approach. Hinson's history of the early church clearly sees only one Christian Church up until the Great Schism.

As to my belief that their ecumenism gives them more credibility, I distrust church historians who try to paint their tradition as the one true tradition.

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Yup, I got distracted by my three-year-old mid-post. That should have been something to the effect that I don't think those historians would deny that they take an ecumenical approach. Hinson's history of the early church clearly sees only one Christian Church up until the Great Schism.

As to my belief that their ecumenism gives them more credibility, I distrust church historians who try to paint their tradition as the one true tradition.
Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for clearing that up. Anyone with a 3-yr old has a right to be distracted once in a while . All to soon you be paying for college or a wedding . I assume the book to which you refer by Hinson is The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages. I do not have it nor have I read it, so I can't comment on it specifically. I am wondering if by the Great Schism you mean the East/West/Greek/Roman/Orthodox/Catholic rift? If so, I think that is too dogmatic of a conclusion. I do agree on the need to distrust historians who are trying to use history to prove their point. If one is ecumenical, he will not be trying to "paint his tradition as the one true tradition," BUT I do not think ecumenical historians are themselves free from having a point to prove.

 

On the whole, I'd say no. As one writer puts it, Carroll is far too willing to grab hold of any old heretic and call them "baptist."

 

Tom, we have a lot of both old and new heretics today that are called Baptists .

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Tom, we have a lot of both old and new heretics today that are called Baptists .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could mention some current Baptist Board members, but this would be way too easy!!!!!

 

Y'all will excuse me if I stand over here behind this concrete wall.

I'll just write my posts on little sheets of paper and throw them over to ya, just to be safe.

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua Villines ]