David Barton and many others who believe that America was founded as a “Christian nation” frequently imply that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. Some even argue that Jefferson was a Christian, and Jefferson himself once said, “I am a real Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.” (1)
But did Jefferson really mean he was a Christian in the same way the Apostle Paul speaks of a Christian? Or is it possible that this quote has been taken out of context and robbed of its true meaning? Is it even possible that Jefferson, despite his statement, was not a Christian?
To find the answer to these questions, we have to go back to the year 1813, when Jefferson was 70 years old. While he and John Adams had been involved in bitter political feuds around the turn of the century, the two had subsequently become friends, and frequently exchanged long letters with each other.
In a letter to Adams dated October 13, 1813, Jefferson mentioned a project he had worked on earlier in his life. The project was a small volume called The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. It was essentially an abridged version of the New Testament that Jefferson literally cut and pasted together in two or three evenings. And what was the purpose of this book?
According to Jefferson:
In extracting the pure principles which [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 themselves . . . 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. (2)
Jefferson wasn’t completely satisfied with his earlier version of the New Testament, however, and he later went back and revised it around 1816 or 1817. This newer version was called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Jefferson refused to publish either version—he wrote that the books “were for [his] own use”—and only a handful of his friends were aware of their existence. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth was finally published in 1903, and the text of the book is now easily available on internet since it is part of public domain. Today it is known as the Jefferson Bible.
The content of the book provides an inside look into Jefferson’s religious beliefs. Jefferson did not include any New Testament books outside of the gospels, and he virtually ignored the Gospel of John (for reasons to be seen). He heavily edited the other three gospels, removing all references to things like Jesus’ miracles and his divinity. Gone are the virgin birth, the resurrection, the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on water.
Writes Fr. John Hardon in his article, The Jefferson Bible:
In accordance with his plan to give extracts from the life and morals of Jesus, Jefferson simply eliminated everything in the Gospels which involves what are technically called strict mysteries, as well as all comments of the Evangelists on the doctrines of Christ. Thus every reference to the Divinity of Christ, Baptism, the Eucharist, and the Primacy is omitted. For this reason also the fourth Gospel is practically ignored. Not a single miracle of Christ is listed; so much so that where a moral precept occurs in a miraculous context, the precept will be cut out of its setting, verses skipped if necessary, in order to avoid quoting a miraculous event.
How thorough was Jefferson in his editing process? He managed to include in his book the first 26 passages of Matthew chapter 19, where Jesus speaks of marriage and divorce. Out of those 26 passages, the only passage Jefferson edited was verse two: “And large crowds followed [Jesus], and he healed them there.” Jefferson took out the italicized portion.
Hardon gives more examples of Jefferson’s selective editing:
Mark 1:4 tells us that “John did baptize in the wilderness and preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Jefferson cut out the italicized portion. The second chapter of Luke speaks of Jesus’ return from Jerusalem to Nazareth as a child, saying, “And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them; and his mother kept all these things carefully in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and grace before God and men.” Jefferson deleted the italicized portion. In John, the account of the Last Supper relates: “And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come forth from God and was going to God, he riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel and girded himself.” Guess which part Jefferson cut out?
Instead of an account of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, Jefferson ends with this:
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus, And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
This kind of thing understandably poses a bit of a problem for men like Barton. Their response is a feeble one that has nonetheless become oft-repeated.
“Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a ‘Bible,’ but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ,” David Barton’s Wallbuilders website repeatedly says, without quoting or providing a source to Jefferson’s own words.
“It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians,” wrote D. James Kennedy on WorldNetDaily.
And from truthpizza.org: “There never was a Jefferson Bible per se. Jefferson did cut out miracles from the Gospels in order to produce a book on ethics—the ethics and morals of Jesus Christ for the purpose of evangelizing and educating the American Indians.”
This response is based on the curious subtitle Jefferson gave his edited version of the New Testament: “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.” (3)
There are, however, multiple problems with the argument that Jefferson’s little editing excursion was merely an abridgement intended to help Indians.
The biggest problem is what Jefferson himself said about his book—or more specifically, how little he said about it. If Jefferson intended his book for the Indians, why did he refuse to publish it? As it was, he mentioned the book in passing to only a handful of friends, and many members of his own family were not aware of the book’s existence. Jefferson kept the book in his private library and, after his death, it went to his daughter Martha. (4)
“Jefferson did not prepare ‘Life and Morals’ with an eye toward publication,” noted Andrew Burstein in his book Jefferson’s Secrets. (5)
When Jefferson did speak of his book in private letters, he never mentioned that it was for the benefit of the Indians. Instead, he wrote to John Adams that his edited version of the New Testament was “for my own use.”
It is clear from Jefferson’s writings that he did not view his version as an “abridgement” or “primer,” as Barton and others claim. Jefferson instead felt he was “extracting the pure principles which [Jesus] taught” by removing the “misconceptions” of priests and the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as any other “artificial vestments”—i.e., the epistles. Once Jefferson stripped away all this, he felt what remained was “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” To Jefferson, it was “as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.”
And if the Jefferson Bible was merely an “abridgement” or a “primer,” it was certainly a very strange one. Imagine a Christian “primer” of the New Testament, supposedly meant for the benefit of unbelievers, that does not speak of the Virgin Birth or Christ’s resurrection! Jefferson must not have been familiar with the apostle Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor. 15:17: “And if Christ has not been raised [from the dead], your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.”
The thought of eliminating entire books from the Bible and crudely cutting and pasting other books apart probably makes most Christians shudder. But for Jefferson, such an action was really par for the course.
“The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible,” Jefferson once wrote.
At another time, he wrote of John Calvin: “[Calvin’s] religion was demonism. If ever a man worshiped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is … a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious, attributes of Calvin.” (6)
Jefferson referred to Christianity as a “superstition,” and predicted that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” (7)
When mentioning those who chronicled Jesus’ life—the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—Jefferson wrote: “We find in the writings of his biographers … a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.”
Most people today aren’t aware that when Jefferson first ran for president, he faced intense opposition from what we could perhaps call the “religious right” of that day. Clergy openly campaigned against Jefferson, condemning him as an unbeliever and an atheist.
One well-known Connecticut pastor, Dr. Timothy Dwight, delivered a speech on the fourth of July where he described the result of a Jefferson presidency:
For what end shall we be connected with men of whom this is the character and the conduct? . . . Is it that we may change our holy worship into a dance of Jacobin frenzy, and that we may behold a strumpet personating a goddess on the altars of Jehovah? Is it that we may see the Bible cast into the bonfire, the vessels of the sacramental supper borne by an ass in public procession, and our children, either wheedled or terrified, uniting in chanting mockeries against God, and hailing in the sounds of Caira the ruin of their religion and the loss of their souls? Is it that we may see our wives and daughters the victims of legal prostitution; soberly dishonoured; speciously polluted; the outcasts of delicacy and virtue, the loathing of God and man? (8)
Such impassioned speeches and warnings certainly had an impact on the population: when it was learned that Jefferson had, in fact, been elected president, some women in New England buried their Bibles in their gardens for fear that he would send men out to confiscate them. (9)
The criticism Jefferson received at the time over his religious beliefs likely explains the strange “for the use of the Indians” subtitle he later tacked on to his edited New Testament. It was a subtle dig directed toward those religious public figures who had, Jefferson believed, unjustly attacked him for his religious beliefs. (10)
Jefferson was a remarkable, brilliant man, and a great defender of religious liberty. He considered himself to be a true Christian. He admired Jesus as a great man and respected what he viewed as true Christianity for the moral code it offered. Unfortunately, as Burstein notes, “Jefferson made the teachings of Jesus mean precisely what he wanted them to mean.” (11)
In a 1983 article that appeared in the Smithsonian Institution, Peggy Thomson concluded: “In trying to expunge the God of revelation and to keep only as much of the God of nature as a rationalist can easily believe in, Jefferson, of course, left out the heart of Christianity as it is understood by most believers.” (12)
What Jefferson’s exact religious beliefs were may still be slightly unclear today, and whether he was truly a “deist” is a question that will probably never be agreed upon. But anyone who honestly researches the subject can’t escape two conclusions: 1) Jefferson was not in any way, shape or form a Christian, and 2) Jefferson’s support for his version of Christianity was due only to his admiration for the “code of morals” Jesus espoused. He rejected nearly everything outside that “code of morals.”
To read the Jefferson Bible in its entirety, please go either here or here.
Sources:
1. Bergh, Writings of Jefferson, Vol. X, p.380, letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.
2. http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/jefferson_m_03.html
3. The Four Gospels According to Thomas Jefferson, Peggy Thomson, Smithsonian Institution 1983
4. ibid.
5. Jefferson’s Secrets, Andrew Burstein, Basic Books, 2005
6. Positiveathiesm.org (Works, 1829 edition, vol. 4, p. 322, quoted from Franklin Steiner)
7. ibid.
8. Mr. Jefferson, Albert Jay Nock, Hallberg Publishing Corp., 1983
9. ibid.
10. The Four Gospels According to Thomas Jefferson, Peggy Thomson, Smithsonian Institution 1983
11. Jefferson’s Secrets, Andrew Burstein, Basic Books, 2005
12. The Four Gospels According to Thomas Jefferson, Peggy Thomson, Smithsonian Institution 1983
Other Links of Interest:
1. http://www.bjconline.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm
2. http://www.discoveret.org/lcoc/news/00n0504.htm
And you think this is evidence that Barton is wrong? Have you ever read Original Intent? He shows from Jefferson’s own words what he believed…
I think the evidence presented in this article is completely conclusive of what Jefferson was. While I regard him as one of our greatest politicians, he was not a Christian by any means. A person who ridicules the divine origin of Christ, His virgin birth, resurrection, etc., and chops up the Bible (literally, just like the king of Judah who Jeremiah sent his prophecy to) cannot be a Christian, no matter what David Barton or anybody else says. All kinds of heathen philosophers have admired the moral teachings of Jesus, but that doesn’t make them Christians. We have to believe in the Christ that the Scriptures teach, not a Saviour of our own making.
I commend Derek for this fine article, people need to know what our third president really believed. While I would not say that Jefferson’s beliefs necessarily overturn the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation, it does illustrate that there were radical unbelievers even among the founding fathers.
I believe S.A.’s conclusion is correct. So let me ask you this: Does it bother you all to have Jefferson’s image on your home page?
It doesn’t bother me to have Jefferson’s picture. This isn’t a religious publication, and I consider Jefferson to be one of our greatest politicians, and this magazine stands for much of what he espoused.
Frankly, Derek hasn’t presented conclusive evidence. Jefferson actually once wrote, “I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of Christ.”
No DEIST would call Him “Christ.” The practice of Deists was to simply call him Jesus the Galilean or Jesus of Nazareth, leaving Christ out of the picture entirely.
The quote concerning Calvin is an appeal to emotion…getting Calvinists all riled up because he decided to go a little too far about one theologian (come on, could you really expect Jefferson to be a Calvinist? His political views would have been entirely different…).
If you will notice the end of the article, you’ll see that Derek is not arguing that Jefferson was not a deist, only that he was an unbeliever. I’m not worried about what Jefferson said about Calvinism, though I do hold to that doctrine. But what about these statements? “Jefferson referred to Christianity as a “superstition,” and predicted that “the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” (7)
When mentioning those who chronicled Jesus’ life—the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—Jefferson wrote: “We find in the writings of his biographers … a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.”
If one believes the Scriptures, he cannot possibly hold that Jefferson believed these things and was still a Christian. He condemned himself out of his own mouth.
Is the question “Was Jefferson a Christian?” or “Was Jefferson a believer in the Virgin Birth, Death, and Ressurection of Jesus Christ?” Christian is a pretty broad term if you think about it. Just because someone is a Christian doesn’t mean they accept certain theological viewpoints.
Have you ever read Original Intent? He shows from Jefferson’s own words what he believed…
I’m getting the book through inter library loan as we speak. I think I know what to expect though.
Does it bother you all to have Jefferson’s image on your home page?
Not at all! See Sam’s response. Jefferson was a great defender of religious liberty.
Frankly, Derek hasn’t presented conclusive evidence. Jefferson actually once wrote, “I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of Christ.”
Um, yes. I quoted that statement in my first paragraph. Lots of people call themselves Christians, including Howard Dean. Jefferson also called himself, on various occasions, an “Epicurian” who followed “the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus”; a “sect by myself as far as I know”; a “Unitarian”; a “rational Christian”; a “Deist”; and wrote: “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction would be the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”
No DEIST would call Him “Christ.” The practice of Deists was to simply call him Jesus the Galilean or Jesus of Nazareth, leaving Christ out of the picture entirely.
As Sam pointed out, I didn’t argue about what Jefferson actually was—merely what he wasn’t.
The quote concerning Calvin is an appeal to emotion…getting Calvinists all riled up because he decided to go a little too far about one theologian (come on, could you really expect Jefferson to be a Calvinist? His political views would have been entirely different…).
Jefferson was condemning Calvin and the Calvinists for their religious views, not their political ones.
Christian is a pretty broad term if you think about it. Just because someone is a Christian doesn’t mean they accept certain theological viewpoints.
True, but I think virgin birth, divinity of Jesus and the resurrection are pretty basic beliefs of Christianity. What is your definition of a “Christian”?
((David Barton and many others who believe that America was founded as a “Christian nation” frequently imply that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian.))
David Barton, in the series, ‘Our Godly Heritage’ explicitly states that even though Jefferson considers himself a Christian, he disagrees with him. He comments, “Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Christian. He loved the red letters, but from an Orthodox standpoint I’m going to have to disagree with him.” He goes on to state that Jefferson didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ. To imply that David Barton frequently implied that, I’d have to ask where you find that. In earlier works he may have, but in his later works, (ever since I’ve listened to him anyway) he never states this. Of course, I haven’t listened to everything Mr. Barton has put out, but I do remember him quoting that he disagreed with Jefferson’s stance as a Christian.
At the very beginning of this article I linked twice to Barton’s Wallbuilders website where he implies that Jefferson was a Christian. I’m happy to hear he recognizes that Jefferson was not a Christian, but when he writes about Jefferson on his website, he leaves the opposite impression:
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). [My note: There’s that deist phrase you’re looking for, David—”Jesus of Nazareth”] What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
Orthodox? Hardly…yet neither are “Oneness Pentecostals” – and there are many pastors today who would say that there are, indeed, true believers among them. My point in all this is to say that Jefferson cannot be classed with Deists (like Paine) or atheists when, in fact, he considered himself to be a very devout “disciple of Christ.” Orthodox? Maybe not, but he was among those who discouraged Paine’s work “The Age of Reason” (along with Adams, Franklin, and, if I’m not mistaken, Madison) because it contained arrogant blasphemies against God.
“Original Intent” arrived today . . . stay tuned!
:D
From David Barton’s Original Intent:
For example, some contemporary works incorrectly assert that Jefferson called himself a deist. Yet historical records are clear that not only did Jefferson not call himself a deist, he called himself a Christian. (Page 144)
On that note, I’d like to quote Jefferson from his May 5, 1817 letter to John Adams:
[I]f the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute a true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, ‘something not fit to be named, even indeed, a hell.’ (Page 283 of In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers—Selected, Edited and with Commentary by Norman Cousins)
(If I had found this Jefferson quote earlier I would have included it in the original article.)
And here is a quote from a Nov. 4th, 1816 letter from Adams to Jefferson:
I see in every page something to recommend Christianity in its purity, and something to discredit its corruptions. If I had strength, I would give you my opinion of it in a fable of the bees. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion. (Ibid, page 281)
A note about Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason: From my brief research it appears to me that Jefferson discouraged the publication of the second or third part of Paine’s work, and he did so because he felt it would only further damage Paine’s reputation; not because he felt the book contained “arrogant blasphemies against God.”
David Barton is an historical joke.
You aren’t going to get the Truth about our Founding from him but, a “bizarre pastiche” of quotations taken out of context (or in some instances outright frauds made up out of whole cloth) to prove the unprovable.
Does it really matter if Jefferson called himself a “Christian?” What matters is what Jefferson meant by “Christian.” Jefferson and Adams rejected all of the key tenets of orthodox Christianity that evangelical Christians hold dear. After reading their views one would think evangelicals would instead shriek: “How dare they call themselves Christian?”
Rowe, that’s slander.
As for Adams – Adams was a believer in Orthodox Christianity…Granted his son was a bit messed up on the infallibility of Scripture (too much time in Enlightenment Europe apparently…), John Adams was certainly a true believer.
Jefferson rejected being a deist. Paine actually thought he was and Jefferson basically lashed at him for it…A deist is one who basically espouses a “clockmaker theory” of God – that He made the universe and left it on its own…Jefferson didn’t believe that at all…neither did Franklin for that matter.
Might I suggest you read Dr. D. James Kennedy on the founders? He’s a pretty solid perspective…
Sorry Mr. Ketter. You are mistaken. John Adams was a Unitarian rationalist just like Jefferson, and viciously ridiculed the doctrines of orthodox Christianity as much as Jefferson did (I never Jefferson he was a “Deist,” but his Unitarian rationalism is almost as incompatible with orthodox Christianity as is strict Deism).
I’ve demonstrated this over and over again on my blog. And I can point you to the primary sources if you need proof.
And I’ve repeatedly read and debunked the words of D. James Kennedy and David Barton.
They are not credible sources.
Spend some time studying my blog for the details. In my next post, I praise Mr. Wallace for his excellent article.
Sorry this should read:
(I never claimed Jefferson was a “Deist,” but his Unitarian rationalism is almost as incompatible with orthodox Christianity as is strict Deism).
Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and yes, Madison and Washington were all theistic (unitarian) rationalists who rejected the tenents of orthodox Christianity.
Mr. Rowe,
My deist statement was directed to Mr. Wallace since he was highlighting the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth.” Sorry for not being clear on that.
In regards to Unitarian rationalism, I’ve read John Adams myself – primary sources – and have yet to come across anything that screams rationalism. For what it’s worth, I didn’t read Barton until 1 1/2 years ago…and I’ve still only read Original Intent of all his books. For the most part, it only confirmed my own personal delvings into the writings of the Founders…
I have no vested political interest in making these claims as, for my part, the Scriptures and the truth of history come first. It is from THAT corner that I maintain that Adams, Franklin, Madison, and Washington were in fact Orthodox Christians. Jefferson, at worst, was heterodox.
“I’ve read John Adams myself – primary sources – and have yet to come across anything that screams rationalism.”
Well, then you need to read more of him.
I would suggest Adams’s entire correspondence with Jefferson, Lester J. Cappon edition.
“I have no vested political interest in making these claims as, for my part, the Scriptures and the truth of history come first.”
Good. Then when you uncover evidence which contradicts your mistaken assumption, you’ll be open to it.
“It is from THAT corner that I maintain that Adams, Franklin, Madison, and Washington were in fact Orthodox Christians.”
Well, you are wrong. All of the evidence is contained on my blogs with references to primary sources.
I encourage you to read it. And if you think I am wrong, please point out my errors.
Actually David, I highlighted the Jefferson quote because of this part: “... the doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus . . .”
If John Adams was “certainly a true believer,” then what are we to make of his statement, “The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion”?
Just some food for thought. (On a side note, I appreciate the kind words from Mr. Rowe; I’m glad you enjoyed this article!)
My pleasure.
There’s lot’s of good primary sources online, as well as a lot of twaddle.
Here is a link to an excerpt of a letter from Adams to Jefferson in 1813. The context is they were discussing a new law in Britain which (finally) decriminalized publicly denying the Trinity. And here we see Adams and Jefferson, two fervent anti-Trinitarians, reacting.
Adams was such an anti-Trinitarian that he claims had God himself revealed the doctrine to him he wouldn’t believe it because three is not one and one is not three. This letter captures many of the points of Adams’s Unitarian Rationalism. In it he:
1) Denies the Trinity;
2) Denies Eternal Damnation;
3) Denies the “Miracles & Prophesies” recorded in the Bible which seem to contradict Man’s Reason, which leads to the fact that he;
4) Elevates Man’s Reason over Biblical Revelation.
I’ve got plenty of other sources to which I can point you guys, if you are interested.
Keep up the good work Derek.
One quick note (my plug of the day!): I’m currently browsing through Barton’s Original Intent, and I plan to have an article written on Barton and his book for the next issue. We’ve often had articles in the past dealing with this and related issues, and I’ve been planning to write one on it as well—now seems to be the perfect time to finally get around to it.
: )
Messrs. Rowe and Wallace,
I stand corrected on Adams…
Pardon this observation but I think the reason neither of you are comfortable with having devoutly Christian/religious Founders who saw no problem with expressing their faith in government has a lot to do with the libertarian sensibilities that you both espouse.
On another note, I can’t see why you all have to attack Barton and Wallbuilders. There are common enemies here and now – the ACLU, the NEA, AUSC, etc. Can we not focus on them instead of deriding those who are with us against them?
I have one criticism about the research in this article. You wrote
“Jefferson referred to Christianity as a ‘superstition,’”
This assertion is footnoted in the article. His footnote 7 is “ibid.,” referring, customarily to footnote 6. Footnote 6 is as follows:
6. Positiveathiesm.org (Works, 1829 edition, vol. 4, p. 322, quoted from Franklin Steiner)
The website from which you drew this data is actually
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm
Footnote 6 identifies a valid quote found on that site.
For footnote 7, however, he was referring to something later on the website. Partially, this:
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods(undated), referring to “our particular superstition,” Christianity, from John E. Remsburg, Six Historic Americans: Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Franklin Steiner,
Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents (1936),
First, you wrongly used the “ibid” convention. But that is rather minor.
Second, you were citing a website with no educational or official validity; not wise for anyone who wishes to be taken seriously.
Third, you cited a source (positiveatheism.org), which cited a book by Franklin Steiner written in 1936, which cited a book by John Remsburg, written in 1906, which gave no citation whatsoever for the “undated”
letter to Dr. Woods.
In other words, your cite was a fourth-hand hearsay cite—the kind of convention, if not
worse, than the conventions David Barton has been beaten up for using!
Fourth, and most importantly, the quoted letter to Dr. Woods is “bogus.”
See http://candst.tripod.com/studygd7b.htm
If you’re going to debunk another author’s research, it behooves you to avoid the same sort of mistakes you’re criticizing.
If what you say is true—that the quote is bogus—then I definitely did goof up. (In my defense, I wouldn’t be the only one to have made this mistake, since websites like the The Ayn Rand Institute also list it.) I plan on looking further into the matter.
I’ll make more of an effort to not use “fourthhand hearsay cite[s]” in the future. : )
Derek,
Thanks for your straightforward response. Please do research the matter. If you can find a primary source citation for the “undated Dr. Woods” letter, you will be the first.
Just another caution: the “other people have made the same error” justification has often been invoked by David Barton. Most people who criticize him the way that you have done don’t accept that excuse from Barton.
I think that the golden rule should apply here: whatever justifications you make for your own errors should be acceptable to you from other researchers :)
Well at 17, Derek is learing a lesson that Barton still seems not to have learned.
I try to be absolutely paranoid in confirming things with primary sources.
“Second, you were citing a website with no educational or official validity; not wise for anyone who wishes to be taken seriously.”
Why would you say that Till’s website has “no educational or official validity?”
I would agree that he should cite the primary source—the letter from which the quotation was taken. If he discovered the quotation on a particular website, he should include that as well.
“Jefferson referred to Christianity as a ‘superstition,’ and predicted that ‘the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.’”
The quotation that begins with “the day will come….” is accurate. I agree the quoted term “superstition” derived from the longer “unconfirmed” quotation (as Barton would put it) is problematic.
Jefferson and Adams thought that Christianity had been “corrupted”: so he/they wouldn’t say that “Christianity is a superstitution” but rather that they wanted to rid Christianity of its corruptions. The problem though is that these “corruptions” were the key doctrines of orthodox Christianity like the Virgin Birth, Incarnation, and the Trinity. Once you get rid of those “Corruptions” then some would argue its no longer “Christianity.”
In defense of Barton, every academic – whether in history, Biblical studies, the sciences, etc. – cites things much the same way. No, it doesn’t work in journalism, but in such studies as this, it is a common and accepted practice, so long as all the back-sources have proper authority.
Well at 17, Derek is learing a lesson that Barton still seems not to have learned.
I have a different understanding about Mr. Wallace’s age:
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/author/derek/
Whether he’s “learned the lesson” about bogus citations yet remains to be seen.
“Second, you were citing a website with no educational or official validity; not wise for anyone who wishes to be taken seriously.”
Why would you say that Till’s website has “no educational or official validity?”
Positiveatheism.org is a private, highly biased, ideological propaganda site. Factual error abound on that site. The fabricated “Dr. Woods” letter is only one example.
Sites with “official or educational” validity generally are .edu or .gov sites. Those domains are highly regulated. But anyone with $7.95 per year can buy a .org domain and post mounds of bogus data.
I don’t mean to imply that all atheists are entirely ignorant, but many, particularly those who proselytize online like the positiveatheism folks, often make arguments that are factually filled with holes.
Just a note for those interested—due to other things going on right now I wasn’t able to finish the article about Barton/Original Intent, so it’ll be pushed back to our next issue.
Regarding John Calvin’s doctrine of election.
If the reader is a Calvinist, allow yourself to question this doctrine momentarily. (It is not a sin to exercise your mind…)
What if “Pre-Election” is not true? What if it was never the Creator’s intention to save a few “Calvinists” and condemn the vast majority of human creatures to eternal “Hell”? If Calvin was wrong then his ideas must be an abomination to our Creator!
The idea of pre-Election is simply the worst example of prejudice the world has ever known! It is the epitomy of prejudice (and pride). It defines the word prejudice like no other concept ever vomited up from a deranged human mind. We can easily and accurately judge Calvin by his actions. Calvin was a unrepented, pre-meditated murderer. He pre-determined that should Michael Servetus ever come to Geneva, “if my authority is of any avail I will not suffer him to get out alive.” Follow this egotistical, self centered murderer at your own risk!
My Grandfather’s brother was Herman Hoeksema. This proud homo sapien founded the tiny Protestant Reformed Church of America! Some proud, misled “PRs” actually believe that even their Christian Reformed neighbors are “not Elect”! So they believe God is only going to save a few thousand PRs and toss the rest of humanity (Billions and Billions!) away? Condemned not to death, but eternal existence in “Hell”!
No wonder Catholics and Protestants in Nazi Germany did not stand and stop the Holocaust! Of what importance are the lives of a few million Jews when they are bound for an eternity in Hell anyway?
Can you see the depravity and insanity of Pre-election? Can you see the evil? I regret that I was born into the Christian Reformed Culture! I am ashamed that this extreme Prejudice was instilled into me in Calvin Christian School! I am ashamed to be related to Herman Hoeksema. This proud animal did not even want to speak to his own (Christian Reformed) brother! It is my humble guess that both brothers were wrong. All doctrines of Hell and Election and Pre-destination are false fantasies and extremely dangerous to God’s Creation.
Sorry, I just discovered yesterday that Thomas Jefferson despised Calvinism and I got a little excited about being able to read more of his thoughts.
James Smits, your limited knowledge of “Calvinism” (which is to say, the sovereignty of God in salvation), is proved by your own comments. Whether or not Calvin should have given a convicted criminal asylum, or even had the power to, is beside the point. One thing you must understand is that election and the elect are knowledge that only God can possess, these things are not revealed, and so who knows who is going to be condemned? I was once not a Christian, (and deserving of many of the bizarre punishments suggested by Jefferson for my crimes during that time), but having been saved I now know that I was always elect. Election does not mean that people who believe in election only are saved, it means that people who believe in Jesus only are saved, and God has always known who they are.