When we read that ancient tyrants hired magicians to perform haruspicy with the entrails of dismembered infants, we immediately discount the record as propaganda. We know without needing to investigate that similar accusations against Jews in the Middle Ages had become a topos of anti-religious rhetoric.
I’m not saying we should believe these accounts, but I wonder: Centuries from now, historians will tell about a civilization that tore apart infants in their mothers’ wombs, or burned them in saline solution. Historians will claim that in the early twenty-first century, the leading citizens of the United States could not decide whether or not piercing the brain of a partially-born baby should be legal.
They will argue that scientists grew embryos in laboratories in the hopes that their genetic material could provide miraculous cures for the sick and dying. Economic historians will trace the sources for the billions of dollars gathered by infant-killers, and the billions more devoted to research on murdered babies.
And I wonder: When historians say all this, will anyone believe it?
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles
Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…
The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…
Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.