John – Has Barton changed his view of Jefferson all of a sudden? Last week he told Beck that Jefferson left in the miracles of healing, feeding the multitudes and raising the dead. Did he recant on those claims?

I read the introduction and first chapters of Warren’s and Michael Coulter’s book in the amazon preview. I too was taken aback by the way Barton characterized academia, inventing terms like “academic collectivism” and crudely transposing philosophical and literary theories on history. I too got a big kick out of how he described “Minimalism,” which sums up exactly what he is doing in “The Jefferson Lies.” I can only assume this little introduction is to marginalize historians and present himself as above such “posturing.”

What I find curious about the interview Warren linked above is the repeated references to Joseph Ellis’ American Sphinx by Beck. Barton also mentions Ellis by name in his book, one of the few historians he actually singles out. It seems that this book may have been the genesis for Barton’s book, but he rather coyly avoids any direct references.

Instead, Barton brandishes a parchment which he claims to be the original 1803 treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, signed by Jefferson and Madison, as if to demonstrate to gullible viewers that he explored only first source material in his book. I thought Warren did an excellent job illustrating how this treaty came about, and what its intent actually was. Needless to say, it had nothing to with “evangelizing” the already converted Kaskaskia Indians, but rather to restore land that had been stripped from them in the wake of an earlier massacre.

It seems incredibly important to Barton to make Jefferson into an Evangelical, holding up the flimsiest of “evidence” to support his case. This reminds me of Gavin Menzies attempt to prove the Chinese first came to the Americas in 1421, by clinging to a literal handful of “evidence,” and the making a number of wild speculations as to how the Chinese achieved this. Both seem to rely exclusively on gullible readers or faithful followers, as the case may be.

And do you allow that Jefferson’s notes put in the Second Coming from Matthew 25:31-46?

That’s far more important and interesting than Barton blowing Matthew 10, which he did.

Barton lazily accepted second-hand research instead of doing it for himself, but that’s the whole damn problem on all sides. Me, I think there are a lot of professional scholars out there who never did the spadework on Jefferson’s bible stuff, and so are too embarrassed to enter the fray as well.

I’m tired of the culture war where Barton ignores half the truth but then his critics ignore the other half. I’ve admired the thoroughness of your work and hope that the people without an agenda can find the diamonds in Barton’s dunghill, so to speak.

That Jefferson included the Second Coming of the Son of Man and heaven and hell and all that stuff in Matthew 25 is no small diamond. It’s a Big Deal.

This is no mere “deism” on Jefferson’s part, or Jesus cast as a mere moral teacher, which frankly, was “common knowledge” about Jefferson I had no reason to doubt until I looked this all up for myself this morning.

And you’re also correct about Barton astoundingly citing several miracles in Matthew 9: I can’t find Mt 9 in Jefferson’s notes atall. Nor the loaves and the fishes: I searched for each of the 4 accounts of that but they’re not in Jefferson’s notes. I spent the afternoon on this, doing my homework to hold up my end of this colloquy. I’m not here to fight.

Neither do I think the private Jefferson necessarily believed the the Biblical account of the Second Coming. I’d bet he didn’t. But the public Jefferson put it out there and that matters, perhaps more than the private Jefferson does.

Thank you for your time and good faith, Warren. I’d like us all to put our flags and banners away and to take this stuff out of the hands of the haters, if we can.

I really hadn’t paid much attention to the Jefferson Bible before but am now curious, having read various essays on the subject. It is certainly a topic worth exploring in greater depth but I guess there isn’t enough material to draw any definitive conclusions on Jefferson’s intents, as he kept his views on the subject pretty close to his sleeve.

As a history buff, I’ve just ordered your book; and, I’m looking forward to reading it. As you’ve worked to set the record straight regarding gender issues in the face of rebuke, slander, and outright lies; you again place yourself in the gladiator’s role of ‘correcting’ bad historical scholarship knowing full well you face being maligned from ignorant (used here in its proper definition), biased, fearful persons. Somehow, the Scripture saying “and the truth will set you free” seems to have been deleted from a good many Bibles.

@James,

Thanks for showing up here at Warren’s blog; and, linking your own blog as well. What a joy to find persons such as yourself and Warren discussing varied important historical/political issues from such studied backgrounds.

By the by, can we at this late historical date have much of an idea of what “original intent” meant 200+ years ago?

I’m a little puzzled by John Bennett’s comments regarding the L&C expedition. I can only assume he is being facetious, as I’ve read quite a bit on this journey of discovery and never once did I read that their intention was to “evangelize” the Northwest tribes. There was one incident I recall where they made a traditional sauna and temporarily “cured” an old chief of his arthritis, but I don’t imagine it lasted long.

aim had been to establish a “Northwest passage,” and Jefferson hoped that he could ally the Northwest tribes against the British and France, so as not to have another French and Indian War. This was one reason he offered to make everything above the 33rd parallel an autonomous Indian state. Of course, the irony of this is that they Northwest tribes already saw themselves as autonomous not only from the fledgling United States but each other as well. I well imagine they were bemused by all these claims being levied against them in the Northwest territory.

Jefferson was a dreamer. He held onto this great agrarian vision of America to the very end. I think in many ways he was a Pantheist as well. He probably would have embraced the native religions if he understood them better, as some of the early Catholic missionaries had done after living among these tribes.

Dear Warren- I did not hear David Barton issue any retractions or recantations. But he did say something that has made me change my mind on the putative belief that Thomas Jefferson edited out the thaumaturgy from the Gospel because of his disbelief in it, as I was formerly led to believe.

Mr. Barton said that Jefferson cut up two Bibles to give omplete NT passages to a printer for publishing an abridged version of Christianity to the Indians that included the thaumaturgy . . in 1804.

I followed your instruction to investigate the Jefferson Bibe for myself and found no specific condemnation of anything, but simply what appeared to be a cut and paste job. Whereas it is evident that Jefferson left out references to angels, Jesus’ genealogy, His prophecy, miracles by Him and His followers, His divinity and resurrection, I found nothing to support his disbelief of these things or secularism.

In Jefferson’s commentary he complains of interpolation by priests. . but I have yet to see any refutation of any specific thaumaturgical event. What I did read was that he felt Christ’s dicta was used by theologians for their own means, and I have seen nothing in today’s churches and theology to suggest anything has changed.

However, I think it is quite clear Jefferson was insane to think he could rectify Christianity by excluding from it what didn’t suit him, when in fact it demands its followers divest themselves of all material possessions and live as communists (Acts 4:32).

The “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” referred to as the “Jefferson Bible” looks like nothing more than notes for a project similar to the 1804 project Barton speaks of featuring the miracles of Christ.

The “Jefferson Bible” was done in 1820, almost two decades after he lazily ordered the work be done in octavo by philogistonist Joseph Priestly in 1803, saying he “didn’t have the time” to do it himself. It came out later as a limited edition from Priestley’s dying hands, published in 1804, just in time to be taken West with Lewis and Clark.

At Jefferson’s urging, Priestly had also cut up two Bibles for the passages of the 52 miracles, translated into Chinook. The poor man died moaning that he would go to Hell for it.

.

What modern “Christian” teaching fails to explicitly do is reconcile this division between thaumaturgist and humanitarian, show cause and effect, that such paranormal phenomena regarded as “miracles” cannot be worked without first accepting the humanitarian doctrine of anti-materialism and love, left out of modern “Christianity” per force. What we are left with is Iscariotism.

Unfortunately neither does Jefferson appear to make this point in his cut “Bible,” but it was quite clear in Priestley’s earlier 1804 project, entitled “Skookum Tamanawis” i.e. “powerful magic” that tells the story of “Tacoma” the pre-Colombian white prophet who, accompanied by two golden wolves, evangelized among the Northwest tribes with demonstrations of supernatural powers of healing, telepathy, tele-transport and psychokinesis.

Evangelism . . this is what Lewis and Clark’s true mission from President Jefferson was, to convert the Indians to True Christianity, Primitive Christianity.

And who knows? Maybe Jefferson changed his beliefs. He also used up his latter years excoriating the press, which he had extolled in the earlier. In any event, the grand effect o Jeffersonian Christian Evangelism was to finally pacify the Indians and allow for their easy extermination.

So really, why should I care? My experience regarding Christian thaumaturgy shapes my beliefs, not Jefferson or anyone else.