Tag: david Barton

How Did Thomas Jefferson Come Up with the Idea to Cut Up the Gospels? (UPDATED)

Cover of Getting Jefferson Right, used by permission
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.

(original post……………………)

Reading through the new edition of The Jefferson Lies, it is clear that David Barton has changed aspects of the first edition to reflect the fact checking work done by Michael Coulter and me in Getting Jefferson Right. In the new edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton removed the story of Jefferson’s praise for Virginia preacher James O’Kelly and he eliminated the claim that James Madison announced support for chaplains at the University of Virginia.

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 letters are 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.

The letters from Dowse to Jefferson and Jefferson to Dowse in 1803 (pdf)

David Barton Can’t Decide When or Why Thomas Jefferson Got His Quran

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

Posted by David Barton/WallBuilders on Monday, February 8, 2016

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:

Warren Throckmorton

By His Own Standards, David Barton is a Historical Revisionist

In a World Net Daily article about dangers to America, Rafael Cruz cites Ted Cruz’s historian David Barton on how revisionist historians operate.

David Barton with Wallbuilders points out four ways revisionist historians excise our Christian heritage from American history:

1. PATENT UNTRUTHS. Whenever a historian claims, :America began as a secular country,” you’re witnessing a patent untruth. Rather than make an untruthful claim about a subject in which most people have a general knowledge, revisionists make claims in areas in which most people lack knowledge.

2. OVERLY BROAD GENERALIZATIONS. Revisionists take the exception and make it the rule. For example, because Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin accepted certain deist beliefs, historians often ignore the deep spiritual lives of men like Patrick Henry and John Hancock, claiming that Christianity played an insignificant role in the formation of our country.

3. OMISSION. By omitting the context of a story or spiritual nuances of a quote, our students are led to believe a different story or even outcome. For example, take a “revisionist” quote of the 1620 Mayflower Compact: “We whose names are under-written . . . do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick.”

Seems pretty innocuous. But here is the true Mayflower Compact quote: “We whose names are under-written having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick” (italics added).

4. A LACK OF PRIMARY SOURCE REFERENCES. Instead of citing “primary-source documents,” revisionist historians will cite biased, second-hand resources. Barton explains:

“The text The Search for Christian America purports to examine the Founding Era and finds a distinct lack of Christian influence. Yet 80 percent of the ‘historical sources’ on which it relies to document its finding were published after 1950! That is, to determine what was occurring in the 1700s, they quote from works printed in the 1900s.”

As it turns out, David Barton has engaged in each one of these practices. This is not an exhaustive list but here are a few illustrations of each point. 
1. Patent Untruths:
Barton said Moravian missionaries were in New England before 1730.
Barton said Thomas Jefferson founded the Virginia Bible Society.
Barton said the Bible is quoted verbatim in the Constitution. I could add more here.
We could also include Barton’s claim to have played Division One NCAA basketball.
2. Overly Broad Generalizations:
Anytime Barton refers to “the founders” as if they all thought and believed the same way. Just flip Barton’s example above. Some founders were orthodox and some were skeptics.
3. Omission:
In the first edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton omitted the part of the 1782 Law on Manumission which would have proved him wrong in his contention that Virginia law prohibited Jefferson from ever freeing his slaves.
Also in the first edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton misrepresented James Madison by making him say that the University of Virginia was going to create a position for chaplains. He cobbled some of Madison’s words to make him say something he didn’t say.
In my experience, all quotes should be checked to make sure they are complete. Here is a quote from John Adams on Barton’s Wallbuilders’ page.

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

Here is the full quote with John Adams’ missing words included (the bold print is what Barton cited as being John Adams’ quote):

Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.

The rest of Adams’ words change the meaning and provide the necessary context for his views of the influences on the revolution. Barton wants his readers to think Adams only gave credit to Christianity.
4. Lack of Primary Source References:
Just recently, I posted an example of Barton using a secondary source 100 years removed from the event in question (re: James O’Kelly).
In the second edition of his book, Barton relies on Mark Beliles, John Eidsmoe and other Christian right authors without going to the primary sources cited by the authors. It is actually fine to rely on secondary sources at times. However, the fact is that Barton does it in The Jefferson Lies even as he condemns other writers for the same thing.
Barton does what he accuses others of doing.
Stay in touch! Like Warren Throckmorton on Facebook:

Warren Throckmorton

John Fea on David Barton's Make Believe Thomas Jefferson

Messiah College history prof John Fea recently authored a history of the American Bible Society. In it, he describes the efforts of certain founding fathers (e.g., Elias Boudinot) to make sure the new United States would be a Christian nation. The American Bible Society was one of those efforts.
In the minds of the ABS founders and supporters, some of their fellow patriots were a threat to their Christian nationalist aims. One such founder was Thomas Jefferson. And yet, Fea notes in a History News Network article, David Barton and today’s Christian nationalists want to make Jefferson one of them.
According to Fea, the ABS founders would not recognize the Jefferson conjured up by Barton. Fea writes:

In the early nineteenth-century, the building of a Christian republic meant opposing Thomas Jefferson.  Today, this no longer seems to be the case.  In fact, some Christian nationalists believe that Jefferson and his legacy are actually useful in their ongoing argument that the founding fathers of the United States set out to forge a Christian country.
 

Stay in touch! Like Warren Throckmorton on Facebook:

Warren Throckmorton

David Barton Claims Professional Historians Don't Use Original Documents and That's Why They Attack His Work

I have just about run out of headlines to describe the errors in David Barton’s description of why The Jefferson Lies was pulled from publication in 2012. He and World Net Daily continue to promote the idea that the book’s critics were liberals and that Thomas Nelson pulled the book due to political correctness. I’ve debunked these false claims more than once.
Now he is advancing another theory about why historians have been critical of The Jefferson Lies. In an article (another whitewash of Jefferson’s actions relating to slavery) at World Net Daily, Barton claims professional historians refuse to use “original documents.” From the WND article:

Barton blames the ignorance surrounding Jefferson on the refusal of professional historians to review original documents instead of second-hand sources.

Barton said: “Nobody knows anything unless they quote from another PhD. No, go back to the original documents. When you go back to the original documents you get things right. And so what they do, when you go back to the books, they all quote each other in a circular fashion. And because I went back to the originals instead of quoting PhDs, the PhDs said, ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about.’”

Barton suggested his use of original sources is one of the reasons many historians are so hostile to “The Jefferson Lies.”

“That’s what gives them heartburn, because now they have to admit that what they’ve been taught may be wrong, their philosophy may be wrong, they’ve taken a position that no longer comports with history, and they’ve been saying that this is what history teaches,” Barton said. “So it really puts them in a hard spot.”

Barton must mean primary sources when he says “original documents.” He himself doesn’t use original documents for most of the claims he makes. For instance, he cites Jefferson’s letters which he takes from books and internet sources. Here are just a few relevant footnotes from The Jefferson Lies:

Thomas Jefferson, “The Thomas Jefferson Papers,” Library of Congress, to Robert Brent on August 14, 1805 (at: http:// hdl.loc.gov/ loc.mss/ mtj.mtjbib015028).
Thomas Jefferson, “Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia,” The University of Virginia, August 4, 1818 (at: http:// nersp.osg.ufl.edu/ ~ lombardi/ edudocs/ jefferson_uva_1818. html).
Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Charlottesville: F. Carr, and Co., 1829), Vol. IV, 23, to Mrs. John Adams on July 22, 1804, Vol. IV, 228, to John Adams on October 28, 1813, and Vol. II, 48– 50, to Mrs. Cosway on October 12, 1786; Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904), Vol. II, 253– 254, “Notes on Religion,” October 1776, Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, 71– 73, to John Adams on January 24, 1814; etc.
Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson, WND Books. Kindle Edition.

As others do, Barton uses what are more accurately called primary sources to cite Jefferson’s words. One can find them on the web or in edited collections of his letters. I have yet to come across a footnote in Barton’s new edition which cites an original document only available to Barton. In the first edition, Barton cited a sea letter signed by Jefferson which he apparently has in his library. However, in the new edition, that letter is not cited. As an aside, Barton used that letter to claim Jefferson signed presidential documents with the phrase, “In the year of our Lord Christ.” We demonstrated in Getting Jefferson Right that Jefferson did not choose to write that phrase in his own handwriting on a shipping letter and apparently in response (I can’t find it in the new edition) Barton removed the claim from the new edition (for more on this claim check here and here).
Historians are taught to use primary sources. It is a foundation of the discipline. For instance, check out this article on using primary sources to teach history from the American Historical Association website:

Strategies and Resources for Teaching with Primary Sources

Free and open access to the raw materials of history is not enough for K–12 classroom teachers. They also need the strategies and resources for effective, relevant, and rigorous primary source instruction. All TPS professional development offerings for history teachers convey the same message: teaching with primary sources helps students ask meaningful questions, develop critical thinking skills, and acquire new knowledge. Whether students are learning about the Civil War, the dust bowl migration, or the civil rights movement, working with primary sources models the investigative process used by historians, and encourages active student engagement at all stages of the learning process. For example, a lesson on the Declaration of Independence in which students compare Thomas Jefferson’s handwritten “original Rough draught” with the final version adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776, illustrates differences in word choice and intent, and hence demands greater scrutiny of Jefferson’s language and the meaning he attached to his words. Also available at the library’s web site is an online interactive program that assists students in sourcing the documents that Jefferson drew upon for ideas and phrases (http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/Pages/Interactives.aspx).

Barton must know he is misleading people here. Perhaps he could give an example of an historian using secondary sources inappropriately but that doesn’t mean that a majority do it. Furthermore, his critics rely on primary sources. We certainly do and since he says he has read Getting Jefferson Right, he knows we do.

Another problem with Barton’s claim is that he uses secondary sources.

For instance, in the first edition of The Jefferson Lies, Barton claimed that Thomas Jefferson invited preacher James O’Kelly to the White House to preach. Barton wrote in the 2012 edition:

Jefferson also arranged for other ministers to preach at the Capitol, including the Reverend James O’Kelly, another of his strong supporters. Originally a Methodist, O’Kelly later founded a movement known as the “Republican Methodists” because of the common beliefs they shared with Jefferson’s political movement. He twice visited Jefferson at the White House, and Jefferson twice arranged for him to preach in the church at the Capitol. 31 Following one of those occasions, a newspaper editor reported that after O’Kelly’s sermon, “Mr. Jefferson arose with tears in his eyes and said that while he was no preacher, in his opinion James O’Kelly was one of the greatest preachers living.” 32
Barton, David (2013-02-15). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 3024-3030). WallBuilder Press. Kindle Edition.

Checking footnotes 31 and 32, one finds:

31 Wilbur E. MacClenny, “James O’Kelly: A Champion of Christian Freedom,” in The Centennial of Religious Journalism, ed. John Pressley Barrett (Dayton: Christian Publishing Association, 1908), 265.
32 Dr. J. P. Barrett, editor of the Herald of Gospel Liberty, Dayton, Ohio, quoted in Wilburn E. MacClenny, The Life of Rev. James O’Kelly and the Early History of the Christian Church in the South (Suffolk: Edwards & Broughton Printing Company, 1910), 171– 173.
Barton, David (2013-02-15). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 5926-5932). WallBuilder Press. Kindle Edition.

MacClenny wrote in 1908 and 1910 (click the link for the 1910 book). MacClenny provides one source for his information regarding O’Kelly and Jefferson, J.P. Barrett. Barrett was the editor of a church newsletter, Herald of Gospel Liberty. While I don’t know Barrett’s entire tenure at the newsletter, he was editor in the early 1900s and not during the early 1800s. He did not witness Jefferson calling O’Kelly one of the “greatest preachers living” because he wasn’t alive.
In this case, Barton not only used a secondary source (MacClenny), but he used one (Barrett) another step removed from Jefferson’s time and the event in question. Barton did just what he accused professional historians of doing. Furthermore, professional historians would find such a source laughable.
What about in the new edition? Did Barton keep the O’Kelly stories?
While Barton removed the story of Jefferson calling O’Kelly one of the greatest living preachers, he still relies on MacClenny to claim O’Kelly was Jefferson’s great friend and preached twice at Jefferson’s request.

Jefferson personally arranged for other Christian ministers to preach at the Capitol, including the Reverend James O’Kelly, another of his strong supporters. Originally a Methodist, O’Kelly later founded a movement known as the “Republican Methodists” because of the common beliefs they shared with Jefferson’s political movement. He twice visited Jefferson at the White House, and Jefferson twice arranged for him to preach in the church at the Capitol. 36
Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 3620-3624). WND Books. Kindle Edition.

The footnote still points to MacClenny:

36 Wilbur E. MacClenny, The Centennial of Religious Journalism, John Pressley Barrett, editor (Dayton: Christian Publishing Association, 1908), 250 and 265, “James O’Kelly: A Champion of Christian Freedom.”
Barton, David (2015-12-22). The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (Kindle Locations 6873-6875). WND Books. Kindle Edition.

In fact, there is no primary or contemporary source for the claims about O’Kelly. Barton relied on a secondary source (MacClenny) which in turn used a secondary source (Barrett) to spread questionable information about these events. Both secondary sources were 100 years removed from the events in question. In fact, there is no primary source evidence that O’Kelly ever preached at Jefferson’s request or even met him.
In preparation to write Getting Jefferson Right, I read James O’Kelly’s papers which are housed at Elon University. In them, there is no mention of a friendship with Jefferson or of preaching in the Congress. The only reference to Jefferson is correspondence between Senator Harry Byrd and the Library of Congress. Sen. Byrd asked the Library of Congress if O’Kelly ever preached in Congress. Frederick Scott, acting chief of the Library of Congress’ Government and General Research Division replied in 1971 that no records could be found to substantiate the story.  I also asked Anna Berke at the library at Monticello if Jefferson ever corresponded with O’Kelly. After a search of all of Jefferson’s papers, she informed me that there is no letter to, from, or about James O’Kelly.
The short summary of this matter is that Barton did what he accuses others of doing. Those who are enamored with Barton’s extensive footnotes should check them out.