This historiographical essay discusses several examples of how religious polemics have been studied with regard to their use of history. Only one book has ever treated the subject in a systematic way: Pontianus Polman’s L’élément historique dans la controverse religieuse du XVI^e siècle (Gembloux, 1932). Applying a rigid scheme, Polman dealt first with Protestants and then with Catholics. For each side, he presented two sections: the first entitled ‘The accumulation of material’ (subdivided into ‘history of dogma’ and ‘church history’) and the second ‘The synthesis of material’. Polman’s general conclusion was that religious polemics stimulated historical research but that theological ideas were often considered to be of greater importance than evidence derived from historical documents and sources. After a consideration of contemporary reviewers such as Hubert Jedin and Lucien Febvre, I discuss Irena Backus' book Historical Method and Confessional Identity (2003) and argue that a new history of religious controversies should build on an ‘anatomy of polemics’, that is, on the study of scholarly conventions, their modification and rupture in Reformation polemics, giving particular attention to the criteria of religious knowledge as exemplified by debates about forgeries.

中文翻译：

---

庞蒂安努斯·波尔曼（Pontianus Polman）重新想象：如何（不）书写宗教辩论史

这篇史学文章讨论了几个关于宗教辩论学在历史使用方面的研究的例子。只有一本书曾经治疗系统地标的：Pontianus波尔曼的L'元素历史之丹斯拉controverse religieuse杜十六^Ë末世（Gembloux，1932年）。实行严格的计划，波尔曼首先与新教徒打交道，然后与天主教徒打交道。他从每一方面介绍了两个部分：第一部分题为“物质的积累”（细分为“教条的历史”和“教会历史”），第二部分为“物质的合成”。波尔曼的一般结论是，宗教辩论法刺激了历史研究，但人们通常认为神学思想比从历史文献和资料来源获得的证据更为重要。在考虑了Hubert Jedin和Lucien Febvre等当代评论家之后，我讨论了Irena Backus的《历史方法和Conf悔身份》一书。 （2003年），并认为宗教争议的新历史应该建立在“辩证法解剖学”的基础上，也就是说，在研究学术惯例时，应将其在宗教改革论辩法中的修改和破裂作为基础，并特别关注宗教知识的标准：以关于伪造的辩论为例。