The epidemic of historical revisionism

I've been wondering if I should offer any input in regards to this Jesus family tomb debacle. I decided that I won't try to shoot it down directly - here's a great link that does so WAY better than I ever could - http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/ - rather, I'd like to address this issue of historical revisionism.
Historical revisionism is using either newly found knowledge or opinion to review certain historical events or people in order to see them in a different way. This process may be both ambivalent or malevolent, depending usually on the motives of the revisionists. These motives range from genuine historical interest to aggrandization through sensationalism and book/movie sales a la DaVinci Code or this Jesus family tomb business.
As a former history teacher, I find it surprising that so many try to inject their own beliefs into history. Both secular and "sacred" sources are guilty of doing this. For instance, I taught for a couple of years at a Christian school that employed a curriculum, Abeka Books, which insisted that virtually all of the founding fathers were Christians, as we today would think of them. Honestly, I believe that is a ludicrous point of view and I would love to disavow of such notions, if I may. George Washington wouldn't even be allowed to be a member of the church that I now attend, as he was the largest distiller of rye whiskey in America. The minister of the church that Martha Washington attended during Washington's presidency remarked that he never once saw George attend. Now, I am not about to say that George wasn't a Christian. I believe he had a deep-seeded faith. However, to try to make him more than he might have been - an 18th century Mason, deist, possible Christian is historical revisionism. I'm mystified by similar efforts to regard Benjamin Franklin - a notorious ladies man and raucous party attendee by most accounts and Abraham Lincoln - a highly conflicted, depressed yet possible believer into evangelical poster boys. The effort to ameliorate these men ring both hollow and historically stunted. Isn't it enough to say that we believe that America was founded with the greatest amount of religious freedom a nation has ever known? Our own Bill of Rights indicates that the government will not be a respecter of any one religion. Why should we as Christians try to make any more out of that?
Of course on the other end of the argument are the Dan Browns, James Camerons (who really should stick to making unsinkable ships and human cyborgs come to life) and the more extreme devotees to religious divorce. I think their arguments tend to smack of both intellectual hubris and antipathy towards Christianity. Once again - better zip up, I think your agenda is showing!
All of this prologue was to introduce a work that I am reading by Ben Witherington - What Have They Done With Jesus. I guess the "they" would refer to revisionists who would have us believe that Jesus was someone other than the Jesus who is presented in the Bible.
"That's because when you consistently do historical work out of your own personal experience, whatever that experience may be, you are bound to skew the historical data some" (Witherington, 2006, p.5). This quote from Witherington seems to point out the subjective nature of historical research. In my experience, I think that Witherington could not be more correct. It is so easy to try to make people act like you do, to get statements or even worse, Bible verses to get to say what YOU want rather than what THEY intended to say. Now, no historian or pastor is ever guilty of that are they? I am sure that I have done exactly that on more than one occasion.
Why? I guess it's because it is both comforting and empowering to present a cogent sermon or argument that batters the opposition to tatters. It's the American ideal as well: bigger, better, faster, newer. It's an unfortunate symptom of a culture that is sucked into sensationalism and celebrity chasing as well. Escapism, anyone? What's wrong with living your life, YOUR life, the only one you have, the one that God in his infinite mercy has granted you?
As revisionism grows - to epidemic levels, hence the title, hehe, it is imperative that as much as possible we attempt to TRY to see things as they are, a difficult proposition, to be sure. Subjective beings view things subjectively. It's so easy to take a verse and use it to support your own point of view, denomination, theological tendency or needs. However, I urge you, I urge myself to take verses in context, in light of the rest of the chapter, book and vision of the Bible as well as orthodox interpretations. If you are viewing scripture in a unique way, guess what, you probably aren't a visionary, you're probably a heretic.
It is the need to reinterpret the Bible that has led to the popularity and proliferation of Left Behind. While I believe that LaHaye and Jenkins have nothing but the best in mind, I do believe that many have bought into that series as if it were Biblical dogma rather than both fiction and 18th century revisionism - from both Darby and Scofield. The rapture is a perfect illustration! Looking for Biblical evidence leaves one lacking of a clear and definitive stance on the issue.
Furthermore, only a revisionist would believe that we have exclusivity on believing that we live in the last days. Paul, Peter and the writer of Hebrews held this belief as did the early church fathers from Irenaeus to Lactantius. In fact, it might be safe to say that every generation has held that they were living in the last days. However, it would also be safe to say that only the past few have contended that a "bail-out" mechanism is in place. Now, to say anything different, such as that the rapture is both a misinterpretation and potentially dangerous doctrine - akin to Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to appear - that damages faith rather than strengthens it, can lead to unnecessary arguments, debates and schisms.
My point here is that a little revisionism can lead to a world of hurt. Whether in the church or in the world, revisionism as an occupation is a deadly one, if it is used to reinterpret personal agendas through history. History is just that - history. It was what it was. While we can use the passage of time to understand actions and events better, it is problematic to try to take those events out of their unique historical context. History can be cool and it can be ugly, too. Revisionists have both better understood the actions of the "pilgrims" and tried to explain away the Holocaust. Let the facts speak for themselves and let's try together to understand them!