Thomas Kidd called George Marsden “the greatest historian of American religion of the past generation.” In The Jefferson Lies, Barton cited Marsden as an authority. In Marsden’s 2014 book titled The Twilight of the American Enlightenment: The 1950s and the Crisis of Liberal Belief, he described David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies as an effort to make Jefferson into an orthodox Christian. His footnote on Barton’s book leads to a description of Getting Jefferson Right. It is not a direct endorsement but it sounds good to me. First, read what Marsden has to say about The Jefferson Lies:
Marsden then leads readers to GJR in his footnote:
Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission
Pundits have been predicting last minute surprises in the South Carolina primary.
This looks like an effort by the Cruz campaign — sorry I meant Barton’s Cruz Super PAC — to cast doubts on Rubio. It certainly sounds like there is a lot of coordination between the Super PAC and the campaign (e.g, door knockers paid for by the Super PAC).
We also learn in this video that many Iowa pastors showed a Cruz video in church and urged people to vote for Cruz…just like Jesus exhorted us to do!
Near the end of this segment, Barton says that many of Rubio’s supporters and donors are establishment gay marriage supporters.
If personnel is policy, as Bryan Fischer said near the end of the clip, then folks concerned about dominionism, and the misuse of history and the constitution (Barton: the Constitution quotes the Bible verbatim) better watch out for Cruz.
(Apparently the embed feature isn’t working, so you can click through to Vimeo to watch; a brief clip of the gay marriage exchange is below.)
[vimeo]https://vimeo.com/156016340[/vimeo]
Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission
Recently, David Barton appeared on Dove TV and was in rare form. He was on to promote The Jefferson Lies book, but I think he is confused about which edition he is supposed to describe. He told stories about material that was in the first edition but not the second. More on that below.
To cover it all, I have embedded the YouTube video and will provide the beginning and end times where he takes up a particular topic. Readers can choose what is of interest or watch the whole thing.
The host of the show is Perry Atkinson. Watch (or see the segment times below the video).
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw0pSw77gm8[/youtube] Introduction
The first 1:06 is introduction followed by a question from the host about what the controversy is about The Jefferson Lies. Barton says the academics want Jefferson to be a secularist and since he portrays Jefferson as a religious supporter, the academics don’t like it. Barton says the academics who criticize the book are off-based. This goes until 2:o2. Jefferson’s Quran
From 2:02 to 4:20, Barton answers a question from Atkinson about President Obama’s speech at the Baltimore mosque. Again Barton tells the audience that Jefferson bought a Quran in 1786 in order to understand his Islamic enemy. As I have pointed out, Jefferson actually purchased his copy of the Quran in 1765 while studying law under George Wythe in Williamsburg. It is worth pointing out that Jefferson wrote in his autobiography, long after his diplomatic mission and his conflict with the Barbery Pirates, that Virginia’s 1786 law on religious freedom meant to include protection for Muslims (Mehometans):
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.
While we don’t know why Jefferson purchased a Quran in 1765, it didn’t relate to his mission to the Barbery Pirates since he was in Williamsburg at the time. Furthermore, Barton implies that Jefferson’s administration had something to do with the first American edition of the Quran in 1806 which is untrue. For a more accurate description of Jefferson’s dealings with the Tunisian ambassadors visit, see this Monticello article. Jefferson and the Democrats
From 4:21 to 6:12, Barton makes a case that the modern Democratic party is ashamed of Jefferson and is moving to purge mention of him from their events. Barton says his book counters the false portrayal of Jefferson, but he claims that Jefferson would disagree with the modern party on 15 points.
At 5:38, Barton claims Jefferson “was a civil rights guy” and wanted to free his slaves but was not allowed to do so because of Virginia law. I have covered that false portrayal in severalposts. While it is true that Jefferson wanted to end the slave trade, he did not believe freed slaves and whites could live together and favored their removal to the West Indies. Jefferson Memorial
From 6:12 to 8:08, Atkinson and Barton discuss the religious quotes in the Jefferson Memorial. Barton then quotes from Jefferson’ Notes on the State of Virginia:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever:
One reason I think it is so important to Barton to make Jefferson into an evangelical is to make quotes like this seem as though Jefferson means evangelical Christianity when he writes about God. Jefferson’s beliefs were influenced by Joseph Priestley, among others, who did not believe Jesus was God. Jefferson wasn’t a deist as most people think of that term (God created and left us to our own devices) but he was not orthodox either. He believed in reason as the way to understand God and discounted most of the Bible. Sally Hemings
From 8:09 to 9:40, Barton dogmatically rejects the possibility that Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings children. Since this can’t be proven one way or the other, I don’t believe Barton’s dogmatism is warranted. However, I haven’t gotten into this issue because I believe the evidence is inconclusive. Many good scholars believe he fathered one or more of her children and some disagree. This account from Monticello is a good summary of what is known. University of Virginia
From 9:41 to 11:40, Barton defends his claim that the University of Virginia had chaplains and was a non-denominational school. He even says Jefferson invited a Jewish presence as a part of the invitation to Christian denominations to start seminaries on the outskirts of the campus. It is true that Jefferson invited religious groups to start schools nearby. No such schools were ever built. It is not true that these schools would have been under the jurisdiction of UVA.
It is amazing to me that Barton brought up the chaplains at UVA story. He removed that story from his new edition and yet here he implies chaplains were at UVA when Jefferson was alive. Chaplains didn’t come along until long after Jefferson died. I wonder if Barton knows the chaplain story was removed from the new edition. Please see my articles on chaplains at UVA to get the right story (here and here). Jefferson certainly didn’t “make sure” students attended divine services every week as Barton claims. Academics Are Wrong
From 11:40 to 12:39, Barton answers Atkinson’s question: How do academics respond to you when you come back with this stuff? Barton replies:
Usually they say, ‘You haven’t been trained in history, you don’t have a Ph.D., Well, that’s true. All I’ve got is the original documents. I’m sorry, I don’t have a Ph.D.; actually, I do have a Ph.D. but I’ve got the original documents as well. I just don’t consider myself an academic; I consider myself a lover of truth.
Wait, Barton has a PhD? First, he said he doesn’t have one, then he said he does. He has never claimed anything other than his BA from Oral Roberts and an honorary doctor of letters from Pensacola University. It appears that Barton told another whopper about himself (like this one).
At 12:17, Barton adds:
In the case of the academics who’ve attacked the book, they say Barton doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, what Jefferson, we all know Jefferson was an deist agnostic, and they appeal to popular prejudice rather than going to truth as the basis.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of his critics. Neither Michael Coulter nor I have never said Jefferson was a deist or an agnostic. Our book, Getting Jefferson Right, is the target of Barton’s criticism in the second edition of his book. He knows better than this. Break and Commercial
From 12:40 to 13:21, Atkinson takes a break and promotes Wallbuilders. Jefferson’s Abridgments of the Gospels
From 13:22 to 19:00, Barton defends his view of Jefferson’s abridgments of the Gospels. First, Atkinson asks Barton if Jefferson cut up the Bible. Barton gives the same misleading answers he usually does. He begins by pretending that he is the only one who knows Jefferson twice abridged the Gospels, once in 1804 and then again around 1820. He told Atkinson’s audience at 14:50 that no one has ever been able to answer the question about the existence of two extractions. Of course, that is not true since Coulter and I very deliberately addressed his claims in Getting Jefferson Right.
At 15:20, Barton obscures the real story of the Kaskaskia Indians by referring to the terms of the treaty as the provision of missionaries and funds to build the tribe a church. In fact, the Catholic priest was already there and most of the tribe had already converted to Catholicism when Jefferson signed that treaty. The remnant of the tribe needed a church since they were being relocated. Furthermore, Indian tribes were considered a sovereign nation (not citizens of America) within America which meant that the first amendment wasn’t relevant. For more on the Kaskaskia, see this article (and this one).
Then at 15:27, Barton doubles down hard on his story that William Bennet’s sermon was what motivated Jefferson to make his extraction. He puts words in Bennet’s mouth. Recently, one of Barton’s colleagues, Mark Beliles, confirmed to me that Bennet’s sermon doesn’t include any of the detail Barton claims. Anyone can read the sermon and see that Barton’ story just isn’t there. I challenge him to publish the portion of Bennet’s sermon that contains the story he told to Atkinson’s audience.
Then, Barton erroneously claims the 1804 version included miracles of healing the sick and raising the dead (see this article for a refutation of that claim). Barton also claims there’s a resurrection, implying that the Resurrection of Christ was included. Not so, there was no Easter morning in either of Jefferson’s extractions. In fairness, what Barton may have referred to was Jefferson’s belief in an afterlife and judgment where we all will be judged based on our works, not the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. However, I don’t think his statement was clear.
There is no dispute that Jefferson chose portions for his abridgments based on what he believed really came from Jesus. For instance, about his 1804 version, Jefferson told John Adams in 1813:
In extracting the pure principles which he [Jesus] taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the 1st. century. (emphasis added)
Whatever other purposes Jefferson had for extracting verses from the Gospels, it is absolutely beyond dispute that he believed he could tell via his reason which verses depicted events and statements which were “evidently” those of Jesus and which ones were added later. Jefferson and Slavery
From 19:01 to 21:00, Barton addresses Atkinson’s question about Jefferson: Was he a racist?
Barton reacts by quoting Frederick Douglas’ and John Quincy Adams’ approval of Jefferson. Barton makes the familiar claim that Jefferson wanted to free his slaves but couldn’t since Virginia law didn’t allow it. I have been over and over this with direct citations from Virginia law, especially the 1782 law on manumission which allowed owners to free their slaves (see articles here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Barton brought up Robert Carter the Virginia slave owner who freed all of his slaves beginning in 1792. Barton wrongly claims it took Carter 75 years to free his slaves. Not so. The descendants of Carter’s slaves were still being freed as late as 1852, but most of his slaves were dead 75 years later. It is a pity that Barton minimizes the incredible bravery and sacrifice displayed by Carter to free his slaves in order to prop up Jefferson’s reputation.
Near the end of this section, Barton said Jefferson didn’t want to own slaves. I believe that is probably true but it isn’t true that he tried to free them. In fact, he sent slave catchers after runaways slaves, and he bought and sold slaves throughout his adult life.
Furthermore, Barton told Atkinson that Jefferson was a “civil rights guy.” This is difficult to defend. Jefferson was in favor of emancipation but only if it led to slaves being relocated out of the country. A “civil rights guy” implies that Jefferson wanted slaves to have equal civil rights. In fact, he didn’t believe blacks and whites could live together. In his autobiography, Jefferson explained:
The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment however were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.
I am not even scratching the surface of Jefferson’s beliefs about African slaves. Conclusion
From 21:01 until the end, Atikinson and Barton conclude that Americans don’t know their history. After this broadcast, this audience is even more in the dark.
While I realize this is a lengthy post, I wanted to get down in one place a response to the typical claims Barton makes in his talks. I also was surprised by a couple of aspects of this appearance. For instance, Barton claims to have a PhD.
Oddly, Barton appears to be promoting his first edition in his media appearances. For instance, he improved the section on slavery in the new book (although not without problems), and he removed the story of UVA having chaplains in the 2016 edition. Yet on this program, he promoted the old stories.
I intend to send this post to DOVE TV. Readers, do you think they will give the facts equal time?
Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission
UPDATE: On the 7/22/16 Eric Metaxas Show, David Barton told this same story. Barton included the part about Jefferson getting the idea to cut up the Gospels due to a sermon from Scottish minister William Bennet. The post below debunks that. I also cite Mark Beliles who told me Barton was wrong in his claim. Beliles was cited in Metaxas’ new book as an authority on Jefferson.
UPDATE 2: July, 2019 and Barton is still telling this story, this time to Ben Shapiro. Even though he soften it for the new edition of The Jefferson Lies, he is telling the same false story when he does interviews.
Today, I bring you another change in Barton’s new edition. The change is subtle and not one he follows when he speaks in public about The Jefferson Lies. Watch Barton respond to a question from Jesse Peterson about Thomas Jefferson’s abridgement of the Gospels.
This video segment is consistent with what Barton wrote in the first edition (2012) of The Jefferson Lies:
Shortly after signing that act, Edward Dowse, one of Jefferson’s longtime friends, sent him a copy of a sermon preached in Scotland by the evangelical minister Reverend William Bennet in which he addressed the importance of promoting Christian knowledge among Indians of North America. 21 The Reverend Bennet advocated teaching Christianity to Indians by using just the simple teachings of Jesus— that is, using only Jesus’ words and avoiding the many doctrines that caused conflict between groups of Christians.
Barton, David (2013-02-15). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 1608-1612). WallBuilder Press. Kindle Edition.
In this story, Barton tells us that Thomas Jefferson received a sermon enclosed in a letter from Edward Dowse. According to Barton, the sermon addressed the promotion of Christianity among Indians and advised presenting just the simple words of Jesus to the them. Barton implies that Jefferson did that with his edited Gospels.
In the second edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton alters the story:
Shortly after signing that act, Edward Dowse, one of Jefferson’s long-time friends, sent him a copy of a sermon preached by the Rev. Reverend William Bennet of Scotland in which Bennet addressed the importance of promoting Christian knowledge, including among the native peoples of North America. 22 He affirmed that the emphasis of many groups was to teach morality, or holiness among Indians, and that no source and no religion, ancient or modern, surpassed the teachings of Jesus on this subject – that both history and reason combined to display “the matchless superiority of the morality of the Gospel.” 23 Concerning that sermon, Dowse, who knew Jefferson well, told him: “[ I] t seemed to me to have a claim to your attention. At any rate, the idea struck me that you will find it of use and perhaps may see fit to cause some copies of it to be reprinted, at your own charge, to distribute among our Indian missionaries.” 24
Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 2247-2255). WND Books. Kindle Edition.
In both editions, Barton claims the sermon focuses on Indians, but in the second edition, he left out the claim that Bennet “advocated teaching Christianity to Indians by using just the simple teachings of Jesus— that is, using only Jesus’ words and avoiding the many doctrines that caused conflict between groups of Christians.”
What Really Happened and Why Is It Important?
In 1804 and around 1820, Thomas Jefferson took two copies of the New Testament and cut out verses that he believed truly came from Jesus. In several letters to friends, Jefferson described the process of assembling the philosophy of Jesus as being as simple as plucking diamonds from a dunghill. Jefferson had a lot of confidence that he could tell the difference between Jesus’ actual teaching and teaching added later by his followers.
A copy of the 1804 abridgment of the Gospels has not survived. The Bibles he used as source material, a title page and a list of verses to include in the abridgment have survived. There are many historical puzzles surrounding this version but one which is relevant to this post is the title page. Jefferson titled his 1804 version:
The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John; Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians Unembarrassed with Matters of Fact or Faith Beyond the Level of Their Comprehensions.
The fact that he said the version was “for the use of the Indians” has given rise to many questions. Barton teaches that Jefferson meant to give his abridgement to Indian missionaries or tribes. However, Jefferson never did this, nor did he anywhere else directly describe any such plan. He described his abridgement in several letters to friends, but to none of them did he say he had constructed the volume for the Indians. If not for the title page, there would be little controversy over Jefferson’s intentions. In Getting Jefferson Right, Michael Coulter and I examine the theories but decide we can’t really know for sure since the evidence is inconclusive.
As is clear from the video, Barton claims that a sermon sent to Jefferson by a friend in April 1803 was the trigger for Jefferson’s interest in cutting up the Gospels. Is that true?
In fact, the sermon by Bennet doesn’t mention native Americans. It does extol the moral teachings of Jesus but does not exhort readers to present only the simple moral teachings of Jesus to native Americans. The main point of the sermon is to claim that the morality of Jesus is superior to all other systems of morals, ancient and modern. While the sermon itself doesn’t mention Indians, the sender of the sermon, Edward Dowse, claims that one of the purposes of the sermon was “to promote the extension of civilization and Christian knowledge among the Aborigines of North America.” Here is the first paragraph in full (the full letter is here):
The extraordinary merit of this little treatise, which I now transmit to you, must be my apology, for the liberty I have taken in sending it. As its design (among other objects) is to promote the extension of civilization and Christian knowledge among the Aborigines of North‐America, it seem’d to me to have a claim to your attention: at any rate, the Idea, hath struck me that you will find it of use; and, perhaps, may see fit, to cause some copies of it to be reprinted, at your own charge, to distribute among our Indian Missionaries. –The gratification you find, in whatever is interesting to philanthropy, renders it unnecessary for me to glance at any advantage, which might result from such a measure, in silencing the voice of a calumniating opposition, on the score of your alleged indifference to the cause of religion.
Dowse closed this paragraph by insinuating to Jefferson that he could burnish his religious reputation by getting the sermon reprinted and given to Indian missionaries. It is hard to tell which motive most animated Dowse — helping Indian missionaries or improving Jefferson’s standing among his religious critics. My impression is that Dowse thought Jefferson could do two good deeds at once.
Bennet delivered his sermon to a meeting of the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge in 1799. The SSPCK supported missionaries to Indians as well as local ministers in Scotland. The group paid for a Bible to be printed in Gaelic among other good religious works. Since the sermon itself does not mention Indians or outreach to Indians, it is not at all clear why Dowse said it did. Perhaps the reason he said it was because the SSPCK funded some missionaries to Indians. Readers are invited to read the sermon to check these facts.
In any case, Jefferson declined to comply with Dowse’s request to reprint the sermon. Jefferson’s April 19, 1803 reply demonstrates his commitment to religious liberty of conscience but makes no mention of his desire to edit the Gospels for any purpose.
DEAR SIR, I now return the Sermon you were so kind as to enclose me, having perused it with attention. The reprinting it by me, as you have proposed, would very readily be ascribed to hypocritical affectation, by those who, when they cannot blame our acts, have recourse to the expedient of imputing them to bad motives. This is a resource which can never fail them, because there is no act, however virtuous, for which ingenuity may not find some bad motive. I must also add that though I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of the ancient philosophers, yet I do not concur with him in the mode of proving it. He thinks it necessary to libel and decry the doctrines of the philosophers; but a man must be blinded, indeed, by prejudice, who can deny them a great degree of merit. I give them their just due, and yet maintain that the morality of Jesus, as taught by himself, and freed from the corruptions of latter times, is far superior. Their philosophy went chiefly to the government of our passions, so far as respected ourselves, and the procuring our own tranquillity. In our duties to others they were short and deficient. They extended their cares scarcely beyond our kindred and friends individually, and our country in the abstract. Jesus embraced with charity and philanthropy our neighbors, our countrymen, and the whole family of mankind. They confined themselves to actions; he pressed his sentiments into the region of our thoughts, and called for purity at the fountain head. In a pamphlet lately published in Philadelphia by Dr. Priestley, he has treated, with more justice and skill than Mr. Bennet, a small portion of this subject. His is a comparative view of Socrates only with Jesus. I have urged him to take up the subject on a broader scale.
Despite the fact that Dowse overstated the content of Bennet’s sermon, I have always been puzzled by Barton’s insistence that Bennet’s sermon had anything to do with methods of evangelizing or civilizing Indians. However, the idea is not original with him. Barton has been influenced by Virginia minister Mark Beliles. Beliles is also co-founder of the Providence Foundation where Barton serves as a board member. Beliles makes a very similar claim about the Bennet sermon in his writings. However, Beliles does not say that Bennet directly suggested to hearers that the Gospels should be edited to form an abridgment useful for Indian evangelism.
With that in mind, I wrote to Beliles with hope that he would show me where Bennet mentioned an abridgment of the Gospels for the Indians in his sermon on the morality of Jesus. Consistent with my reading of Bennet’s sermon, Beliles told me that “I have never said [or at least intended to imply] that Dowse or Bennett suggested directly using an abridged version of the gospels for missions to Indians.”
I really appreciate that Beliles cleared that up. However, it appears from the video above that David Barton persists with the faulty story. About that video clip, Beliles told me:
Yes, Barton overstated the case about that sermon itself. But the sermon clearly promoted the importance of getting Jesus’ morals found in the gospel into the hands of missionaries of the society, and they of course were going to Indians as well as other groups. Then that connection of compiling Jesus’ philosophy “for the use of the Indians” is what Jefferson writes. It’s consistent with Bennett’s general concept without directly suggested that Jefferson do an abridgement.
Beliles is too kind. Barton does more than overstate. He makes things up. Barton told Peterson that Bennet’s sermon said, ‘if you want to evangelize the Indians, don’t give them the full Bible because they might read the genealogies,’ etc. Barton calls it a “red letter edition” with miracles. As I have pointed out before many red lettersare missing from the extraction, and most significantly, the resurrection and virgin birth are not included. Barton also told Peterson in the clip above that Jefferson presented it to the Indians. Now that is a Jefferson lie.
Jefferson Explained Why He Cut Up the Gospels
After reading the Bennet sermon and reviewing every letter where Jefferson describes his edited version of the Gospels, I conclude that Jefferson was influenced by the work of Unitarian Joseph Priestley and not William Bennet. In none of Jefferson’s writing on the subject does he mention the Bennet sermon or Edward Dowse. Jefferson didn’t cut up the Gospels until 1804, a year after Dowse’s letter was delivered. However, Jefferson discussed the actual topic of abridging the Gospels with Priestley in January 1804, just two months before he did it. If anything, Jefferson believed the abridgment was a necessary addition to Priestley’s work comparing the morality of Jesus with the “ancient philosophers.” Jefferson told Priestley in a January 1804 letter:
I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier & better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments Greek of the same edition, & two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.
Jefferson said the extraction was “for my own satisfaction” with no mention of Indians or missions. He also references Priestley’s work harmonizing the Gospels as the model for his own extraction. It appears he hoped Priestley might do the job (“I shall now get the thing done by better hands”), but just two months later, Jefferson had his extraction bound in leather.
To Beliles in an email, I summarized the three different narratives regarding the William Bennet sermon and Thomas Jefferson’s Gospel abridgment:
Mainly what I want to do is to compare and contrast the different narratives. Barton’s is that Jefferson received a sermon from Dowse, that sermon advised not giving Indians the full Bible but rather only the words of Jesus, and then Jefferson did that. Yours [Beliles’] is that the letter from Dowse and sermon from Bennet placed in Jefferson’s mind the concept that the Indians should be approached with the superior morality of Jesus. My view is that the letter from Dowse and sermon had no discernible relationship to Jefferson’s abridgement.
Beliles told me that this paragraph is a “good summation of the different views.” Despite our differences, I am grateful to Mark Beliles for confirming that Barton’s story isn’t accurate.
In sum, even though Barton took more of Beliles’ position in his new edition, he regularly promotes a set of facts about William Bennet’s sermon that even one of his ideological mates says is not factual. Neither of them are right about the influence of Edward Dowse’s letter or the Bennet sermon. Jefferson nowhere provides any actual link between the sermon and his Gospel abridgment but he did say on more than one occasion that the extraction from the Gospels was done for his own satisfaction and modeled after the work of Joseph Priestley.
David Barton is a confusing fellow. Sometimes he tells one story and other times he contradicts himself. Take the facts surrounding Thomas Jefferson’s Quran.
Jefferson owned a Quran and Barton has told a couple of different stories about it. First, he told Glenn Beck that Jefferson bought the Quran while on a mission to Islamic nations so he could understand his Islamic enemies. He later modified this story to make it somewhat more accurate. Actually, Jefferson bought his copy of the Quran long before that mission.
However, not one to let a good distortion go to waste, Barton has pulled it out again for World Net Daily in this video.
Dave Barton addresses the lies of Barack Obama made at the Mosque in Baltimore on February 1, 2016, where he said “Islam has always been part of America.” Barton screwers the LIES Obama told about Islam and Thomas Jefferson in his speech in this MUST WATCH videoThe new edition of “The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson” by David Barton is the must have book that sets the record straight on Jefferson as THE quintessential American founder.Get the book signed here –> http://superstore.wnd.com/Jefferson-Lies-Exposing-the-Myths-Youve-Always-Believed-About-Thomas-Jefferson-Paperback?promocode=FBJeffersonLiesGet the book at Amazon.com here –> http://amzn.to/1Rj7Dxh
At 1:55 into the video, Barton purports to address Barack Obama’s recent appearance at a Mosque in Baltimore. Obama reminded the audience there that Jefferson owned a Quran. In response, Barton claims to explain why Jefferson owned it. Barton says Jefferson bought the Quran in order to learn more about his Islamic enemies. Barton says that in 1784 we had to deal with Muslim terrorists (Barbary Pirates) by sending John Adams, Ben Franklin and Jefferson to negotiate with five Islamic nations attacking Americans. Barton says that Jefferson and Adams both bought Qurans because they wanted to understand claims made by an Islamic ambassador. According to Barton’s timeline, this happened in 1786.
Barton also implies that Jefferson’s administration had something to do with the printing of the first American edition of the Quran. Not so. The 1806 edition of the Koran was printed by Henry Brewer for Isaiah Thomas. The introduction which Barton reads was actually taken from a version in the 1600s and was not specific to Jefferson’s administration.
In fact, as the Monticello website makes clear, Jefferson purchased his copy of the Quran long before 1786.
Thomas Jefferson owned a copy of the Qur’an, which was the second edition of a 1734 translation by George Sale, a two-volume set published in London in 1764. This set was sold to the Library of Congress in 1815, and rebound by the Library in 1918. The daybook of the Virginia Gazette records the purchase of this edition by Jefferson in Williamsburg in 1765.1 There are no other known records of Jefferson reacquiring this work, suggesting perhaps that it survived the fire at Jefferson’s family home, Shadwell, in 1770.
The bottom line is that Thomas Jefferson purchased his copy of the Quran in 1765. David Barton, alleged Jefferson expert, repeatedly gets this fact wrong by saying Jefferson acquired it while on diplomatic mission in 1786. Later, Barton tap danced around the facts to his buddy Glenn Beck but more recently returned to the false narrative that has Jefferson buying it in 1786. Stay in touch! Like Warren Throckmorton on Facebook:
