Category: history

BeliefNet Promotes The Jefferson Lies

I was surprised to see this Jefferson and the Bible gallery at BeliefNet. The first page cites David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies, which is never a good beginning.

This morning I wrote BeliefNet and asked them to correct what was wrong which would in effect mean removing most of it. I have no reason to think that they will not be responsive. Many well-meaning people read Mr. Barton’s materials and think they have discovered hidden truth. I suspect the BeliefNet folks have simply not checked the sources.  Here, with a little editing, is what I sent to them. Feel free to contact them as well or leave a comment at the bottom of the pages.

I am writing to offer comment and suggest that you modify or remove the gallery about Thomas Jefferson and the Bible. The web address is here: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/ElectionCenter/Gallery/Urban-Myths-About-Thomas-Jefferson.aspx.

Along with a colleague I have written a book (Getting Jefferson Right) which responds to The Jefferson Lies. I am an evangelical but believe that the facts are more important than ideology. I hope you will take these concerns seriously and makes changes to make your materials conform to the facts.

The gallery is significantly factually flawed. I will only comment on a few things but hope you will contact me so I can offer a fuller explanation.

The first page of the gallery says that Thomas Jefferson was an active member of the VA Bible Society. In fact, he donated $50 once to the society on request of his insurance agent, Samuel Greenhow. Being an active member would indicate attendance at meetings, being an officer, donating regularly or even joining. There is no indication in Jefferson’s writings that he did anything more than give a donation. Also, regarding the financial struggles of Jefferson and the donation. Jefferson was almost always in financial trouble and died in dept. Below is the letter Jefferson sent to Greenhow in full. Note that Jefferson does not want the society to give Bibles out in other countries.

Your letter on the subject of the Bible Society arrived here while I was on a journey to Bedford, which occasioned a long absence from home. Since my return, it has lain, with a mass of others accumulated during my absence, till I could answer them. I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries my own forbids intermeddling. I had not supposed there was a family in this State not possessing a Bible, and wishing without having the means to procure one. When, in earlier life, I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. However, circumstances may have changed, and the society, I presume, have evidence of the fact. I therefore enclose you cheerfully, an order on Messrs. Gibson & Jefferson for fifty dollars, for the purposes of the society, sincerely agreeing with you that there never was a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four evangelists. Accept the assurance of my esteem and respect.

On page two, you say that Jefferson personally helped fund a ground breaking Bible. In fact, he paid a subscription fee to get a copy of the Thompson hot-pressed Bible, just like the other 1271 subscribers did. Jefferson was even late in paying his final subscription fee.

Page three is accurate.

Page four is similar to page two: Jefferson purchased Thomson’s work when he saw it advertised. Here is what he told Thomson:

 —I see by the newspapers your translation of the Septuagint is now to be printed, and I write this to pray to be admitted as a subscriber. I wish it may not be too late for you to reconsider the size in which it is to be published. Folios and quartos are now laid aside because of their inconvenience. Everything is now printed in 8vo, 12mo or petit format. The English booksellers print their first editions indeed in 4to, because they can assess a larger price on account of the novelty; but the bulk of readers generally wait for the 2d edition, which is for the most part in 8vo. This is what I have long practised myself. Johnson, of Philadelphia, set the example of printing handsome edition of the Bible in 4v., 8vo. I wish yours were in the same form.

Jefferson learned of the project from the papers and wanted to buy one. Buying something is not the same thing as funding the project. Continue reading “BeliefNet Promotes The Jefferson Lies”

Monday Night Live with Jerry Newcombe

Last night I was on Jerry Newcombe’s Monday Night Live talk show which is aired on WAFG-FM, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.  Newcombe’s views lean toward the Christian nationalist side of things, having co-authored, What if America was a Christian Nation Again? with D. James Kennedy as well as George Washington’s Sacred Fire with Peter Lillback. I was on the show to discuss Getting Jefferson Right, and more specifically aspects of Jefferson’s life and views. The point of the show was not to focus on the mistakes made by David Barton in The Jefferson Lies, but rather to discuss our perspective on some of the same issues Barton’s covers in his book.

The first half of the 30 minute segment was devoted to Jefferson and slavery and the second half to Jefferson’s religious beliefs with some time spent on Jefferson’s extractions from the Gospels. Newcombe is a gracious host and allowed me time to develop Jefferson’s contradictions.  I experienced the segment as a point-counterpoint exchange. Newcombe brought up various anti-slavery statements made by Jefferson and I acknowledged those but noted Jefferson’s actions which were inconsistent with his lofty ideals. For instance, Jefferson spoke against the slave trade, however, he engaged in buying and selling of human beings throughout his life. Without challenge, I drove home the point that Jefferson was legally able to free his slaves but did not do it.

The second half of the show revolved around Jefferson’s religious beliefs. Newcombe was particularly bothered by Jefferson’s statements that finding Jesus’ actual teachings in the Gospels was as easy as picking diamonds from a dunghill. Jefferson’s extractions of Jesus’ teaching for what is often called the Jefferson Bible was guided by his confidence that he could easily tell what came from Jesus of Nazareth (diamonds) and what was added by his followers (dunghill). Newcombe rightly observed that Jefferson set himself up as a judge over the Bible. Newcombe seemed genuinely troubled that Jefferson believed that the Gospel writers were responsible for obscuring the real Jesus.  He had been led to believe it was the church in the middle ages which did so. I wish I would have driven this point home more strongly. After the broadcast and while Newcombe was talking to the next guest Mark Beliles (more about him in a bit), I recalled Jefferson’s assessment of the New Testament writers. In a 1820 letter to William Short, Jefferson said:

Among the sayings & discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I seperate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and firm corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that his part composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The Syllabus is therefore of his doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other antient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and disent.

Jefferson believed that the corrupting of the New Testament began with His biographers and then became further corrupted by Paul, the author of most of the New Testament. This clearly bothered Newcombe which he carried into the next segment with Mark Beliles.

Beliles is a minister in the Charlottesville, VA area and co-founder, with Stephen McDowell, of the Providence Foundation. David Barton is on the board of that group. On their website, they describe one objective of their organization:

Jesus commissioned believers to “make disciples of all nations,” which, according to Matthew Henry, means to “do your utmost to make the nations Christian nations.”

The nations need an understanding of how to build a Godly society. We need personal revival, for all change begins in the heart of man, but Biblical revivals have historically transformed society as well as individuals. Without Biblical reformation, tyranny and oppression will increase. God has called His people to serve in civil government, education, the media, politics, and business, as well as the family and church. Everyone must know how to apply Biblical principles in their calling. Many are called to equip others in a Biblical worldview.

Listening carefully to Beliles, I could hear David Barton’s talking points about Jefferson’s religious faith. Belilies said Jefferson abridged the Gospels for missions to the Indians and downplayed the diamonds from a dunghill imagery. He tried to locate all of Jefferson’s skepticism to near the end of his life and advanced the dubious notion that Jefferson was influenced by the Primitivist and Restoration movements to change orthodox views into heresy. In our book, we examine that idea and find it to be without merit. If anything, the Restoration preachers were inspired by Jefferson and his republican ideals more than the other way around.  As far as we can discern, Jefferson never mentioned the Restoration movement but he did talk much about Unitarianism and his affiliation with that viewpoint. Beliles said people in Virginia did not question Jefferson’s orthodoxy which is just not right. For instance, opposition in Virginia to the University of Virginia often referenced Jefferson perceived infidelity.

It would have been good for us to be on together so I could have asked Beliles about his evidence, but it is Newcombe’s decision to set it up how he wants. In all, I appreciate the opportunity to present some of our work in that forum.

I will be on the Jerry Newcombe Show tonight to discuss Getting Jefferson Right

Tonight, from 9:00-9:30pm, I will be on the Jerry Newcombe Show. The program can be heard live on the station’s website (look for the listen live icon in the upper right hand corner or try this link).

Newcombe is author of The Book That Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation and co-author with Peter Lillback of George Washington’s Sacred Fire.

The plan is to discuss Getting Jefferson Right.

Vote Today for the Least Credible History Book in Print

Last week, the History News Network put out a call to nominate The Least Credible History Book in Print. The New York Times gave this process a boost with an article on Independence Day. The top 5 nominees are in and they are:

You can vote at the History News Network and here below.

David Barton’s 700 Club Interview: The Things We Didn’t Say

Guest post by Michael Coulter

David Barton was interviewed for the July 4, 2012 edition of the 700 Club.  It is 9 minutes of remarkably misleading television.   There are many false claims about Jefferson, but I want to focus on Barton’s reference to our book Getting Jefferson Right in this post.

Without being asked about the book, Barton says:

 A lot of that goes back to a whole academic viewpoint of  Deconstructionism. . . there’s a couple of professors who hate this book and they’ve got a book written to rebut it and they start up right up front saying “hey you think American exceptionalism is a good thing.  It’s not.  American exceptionalism is terrible.”  That tells you the philosophy.  They don’t like America as that position.   And Jefferson six of the ideas he put in the Declaration are the basis of every idea in the Constitution. That produces American exceptionalism . . so if you’re going to tear apart American exceptionalism, you’ve got to tear  the guy who founded it.  And so you go after Jefferson and other founders . . .  If you don’t like American exceptionalism, you’ve got to take him out.  That’s really the target of academics. (2:49-3:50)

Here’s what we wrote in the introduction of GJR about American exceptionalism:

Barton then argues that the “joint influence of Deconstructionism and Postructuralism” has undermined “American exceptionalism.”  The problem with this brief reference to the phrase, “American exceptionalism,” is that Barton uses the phrase as if it has a single and agreed upon meaning, and that meaning is that “America is blessed and enjoys unprecedented stability, prosperity and liberty.” The problem with this characterization is that the phrase, “American exceptionalism,” lacks a single, canonical definition. There is no one author that can be said to have indisputably originated the idea.  Raymond Smith says that it is a “school of thought that views U.S. politics and society as a distinctive product of unique circumstances.”  The components of American exceptionalism, according to Smith, include social mobility, a distinctive national creed, and unique institutional development.  Smith also asserts that “American exceptionalism” also sometimes “carries a connotation of superiority” with respect to democratic practices.  Smith further argues that the xceptionalist perspective has been used to justify expansionist or aggressive military policies undertaken by the US government.   Some, like Smith, see the term used in a variety of ways; others, such as Michael Ignatieff, a public intellectual and scholar of human rights (and currently the leader of the Liberal Party in Canada), sees the term as mostly negative asserting that it refers to “human rights narcissism,” which refers to the embrace of negative rights at exclusion of positive rights; “judicial exceptionalism,” which refers to the position that foreign court practices and rulings are irrelevant in the United States; and to “American exemptionalism,” which is the view that the United States can and should be exempt from some multilateral treaties and institutions (such as the International Criminal Court).  Harold Koh, a Yale professor of international law, argues that American exceptionalism includes a favorable element such as “a distinctive rights culture” but also a “problematic face  . . . when the United States actually uses its exceptional power and wealth to create a double standard.”

For deconstruction, post-structuralism, and American exceptionalism, Barton takes complex terms and uses them in a way that nearly all scholars would not recognize.  (Note: footnotes that accompany this portion of text in book are here removed.)

Our point is rather straight forward: Barton uses a term whose meaning is contested, but he uses it as if it has a single, uncontested meaning.  We do not say that “American exceptionalism is terrible,” but we acknowledge that some writers use the term in a negative way.

In social life, there are many terms whose meaning is contested.  Take a commonly used term, such as conservative.  There is no single agreed upon definition for that term.  Rush Limbaugh, David Brooks, Russell Kirk, William Buckley – all significant American conservatives – would all have different definitions of what is a conservative.  No one can reasonably claim that there is a single definition of a conservative.  In the same way, there is no single definition of American exceptionalism.

Moreover, Barton says, “They don’t like America as that position,” even though we say nothing remotely like that.  And further our aim is not to “tear apart American exceptionalism.”

As a biographical note,  I presented a paper at a 2011 conference hosted by Grove City College’s Center for Vision and Values on Alexis de Tocqueville and American Exceptionalism (the presentation can be viewed or heard by clicking the link, wherein I argue that Tocqueville could be understood as promoting a modest version of American exceptionalism – by which I meant that Tocqueville saw the United States as having a distinct political culture and circumstances which enabled the growth and operation democratic political institutions (but not the immodest version of American exceptionalism which sees the US as some kind of chosen nation).  You can’t listen to that talk and call me someone who hates the concept of American exceptionalism.  Moreover, if one looked at my course syllabi with their plentiful selections of Federalist Papers and other documents from the founding era as well as lengthy passages from Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, one could not conclude that I am trying to “tear apart American exceptionalism.”

It seems that Barton cannot confront our criticism of his claims with discussions of texts and facts, but must go to a classic type of bad argument – the ad hominem criticism.  Warren and I are certainly not bothered by ad hominem criticisms, but we do wish the Barton would respond to what we actually wrote, rather than what he imagines we wrote.

And one more thing.  Perhaps Barton would find this distinction unintelligible, but we don’t hate his book (or him).  We find many of his claims to be erroneous and his arguments to be specious, but that’s not the same as hating something (or someone).   Hate derives from fear or in response to real or perceived threat or injury. Our criticism arises from dispassionate analysis of his claims.