As noted elsewhere, the story itself has no real meaning on the current debate for those who are working in the reality based side of life. However, there are many who tweeted it like it was important and relevant and Beck has an audience who apparently cares about those kinds of stories.
This is just the tip of the iceberg with Barton criticizing others for using secondary sources and then doing it himself. People who get tripped on the story are missing the real problem with Barton as an historical expert. Minimizing that doesn’t help; bringing light helps, even though it is painful for some.

Pat – Have you read our book? You really have no ability to know until you read it. We recognize that one must be tentative on some questions because the evidence is just not there to know. It is Barton who takes a little bit of evidence here and there and makes dogmatic statements about it.

Pat – As a psychologist, I live with ambiguity and few right answers. I am used to it. In fact, my skepticism of the right answers offered by evangelicals in the US is why I am regarded so highly by the culture war complex (sarcasm alert).
However, there are guidelines in doing history well and passing off stories which cannot verified or examined as fact is not good history. One does need to read Popper to know that.

Shorter Patrocles: It is ok to make up something plausible if it is required by the context of the debate.
Like Tom and Barton, you wouldn’t make it past History 101 here.