The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson by David Barton
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
I decided I should read this because of my endorsement of Ted Cruz, and the association that Cruz has with Barton. I am going to be reading Throckmorton next, along with some of Barton’s other critics, so I might adjust my 4-star rating when I have done so, but for the present let me say that I really enjoyed this book, and particularly enjoyed the extensive quotations from primary sources. There is a lot of good information here. At the same time, I am reserving my right to adjust this assessment, and whether it goes up or down remains to be determined.
My agnostic father had one bible in the house: The Jefferson Bible. Thomas Jefferson took all the miracles out of the synoptic gospels to retell the story of Jesus. I still remember seeing my father’s notes and questions marks in the Sermon of the Mount: “Blessed be the meek.” “??” Jefferson was a genius, but it takes tremendous arrogance to rewrite the Word of God.
He thought he took the miracles out, but missed most.
And remember that he called the process of pulling out the parts he liked, “as pulling diamonds from a dunghill”.
Barton tries to claim that Jefferson suddenly became unorthodox in the last years of his life, and that his theology was quite fine before then. But Jefferson had already alluded to doubts about Jesus’s divinity and did his first “clipping” of the Bible during the early years of his presidency, and it’s doubtful that he suddenly thought of the idea for the first time then.
“Jefferson was a genius …”
No he wasn’t. He was a weasel and a back-stabber.
There is no contradiction there. That’s like saying, “No, apples are not red. They are juicy.”
Oh, whatever would I do without people with a need to dispute what I never said?
Or the morons who are impressed with it?
Maybe study up on your rhetoric skills? Because the construction “no he wasn’t, he was a…” implies to most people that you are claiming that he could not be the first because he was the second. Effective communication includes considering how you will be understood as well as saying things technically correctly.
I’d rather that you study up on your reading comprehension skills, such that you learn to not impute what isn’t there.
I think what Dunsworth is saying is that Jefferson was a genius, a weasel and a back-stabber. I believe all of these can be true at the same time.
Have you all done ANY research into the way the bible was complied? Hundreds if not thousands of human authors, political rewrites, ecclesiastical politics, copied by hand in a extended centuries-long manual version of the telephone game. The Jefferson Bible was a bit of genius and a long time coming. You also might enjoy Evelyn Waugh’s letter about Winston Churchill’s son reading the bible for the first time: “In the hope of keeping him quiet for a few hours Freddy & I have bet Randolph [Churchill, son of Winston] 20 pounds that he cannot read the whole Bible in a… Read more »
Have you all done ANY research into the way the bible was complied?
Hundreds if not thousands of human authors, political rewrites,
ecclesiastical politics, copied by hand in a extended centuries-long
manual version of the telephone game.
Disqualify!
Nope!
Try this. A man meets God. The experience is strange. He picks up a book and discovers that for millenia others have had the exact same experience. He realizes that he has a ‘map of the experience’ so to speak. Curious, he digs deeper and discovers principles about this strange thing he was not aware of. The man tests them empirically and they are true. Being social a social creature, he talks to others who have had the same and similar experience. Along comes a random heathen man who attempts to cast doubt on the veracity of the experience by… Read more »
Kid stuff and deepity. Try reason Timothy.
I am probably better at reason than you are. I am a computer programmer by trade and have done very well in math through differential equations.
I know how to think.
What you refuse to see is that some things are more than rational.
One other thing. You keep insisting that I have to convince you. You are mistaken. It is you who must convince me.
Well maybe in the topsy-turvydom of a multiverse where the onus is on those witnessing a truth claim as opposed to those making one. In that world I am digitally patting you on the back right now, saying that you are right.
Again, you fail to distinguish between reason and meeting someone. You do not reason me into being, you met me (much to our mutual chagrin).
Similarly, I did not reason my way to God, I met Him. Your consistent pettiness and smallness of spirit keeps you from opening your eyes and ears to Him.
My knowledge of Him (who is unseen) is consistent with millenia of Scripture. The stories recorded in the Bible are my story, independently experienced.
The onus is on you not me. You will fail.
Nice distinction between reasoning a path to God’s existence (as an autonomous logical conclusion), versus a personal encounter and revelation.
But perhaps RandMan’s labors on this blog will keep him off the streets. I’d at least rather have him here where we can keep an eye on him.
I agree with you, but that is the 1st time i saw on the Internet someone put it so well.
Thank you, that is very kind.
You fail to distinguish between a personally satisfying dialogue with an imaginary being and ‘meeting someone’.
I did not reason the tooth fairy into being. I met her. I spent her crisp dollar bill the next morning. The stories whispered at bedside and recorded in childhood diaries worldwide are my stories, independently experienced.
The onus is on you to disprove her and every other possible imaginary creature ever conjured before I could possibly be satisfied. You will fail.
You fail to distinguish between a personally satisfying dialogue with an imaginary being and ‘meeting someone’.
You do not know that. It is a gross assumption on your part.
God is more real than you are; He is more real than reality. The experience of encountering Him has changed me irrevocably.
Thumbs up.
“Have you all done ANY research into the way the bible was complied? Hundreds if not thousands of human authors, political rewrites, ecclesiastical politics, copied by hand in a extended centuries-long manual version of the telephone game. The Jefferson Bible was a bit of genius and a long time coming.” Methinks that Randman has been getting into some self-indulgent historical fiction. Randman, you will have a hard time finding someone who is more committed to an accurate understanding of the historical process of Bible compilation than I. But this polemic quote, somehow tied to the Jefferson Bible (which I assume… Read more »
No, I am interested in the snorting at Jefferson by folks who if they did any real research into the history of the document purporting to be the un-erring word of god might change their mind. Of course that is why they usually do not, but it is worth saying out loud.
Edit: And by folks I really mean Wilson bothering to shill yet another (discredited) book for the sole purpose of rabble rousing. He even opens the back door in his post for an escape if need be in his classic way.
RandMan types lots of things “out loud”, but even in this very instance he doesn’t deliver the specifics that he needs to actually make his case. It’s as if he is too lazy to actually share the bountiful fruits of his “real research” on the matter. You’d think he could condense it down to just one or two unassailable arguments, at least. But apparently this is too much for him.
katecho, I realize it must be frustrating as facts are denied you. I am sorry for that. But at some point you chose to argue in favor of superstition so I cannot help you there. You are compelled to undermine arguments as your sole offense (sorry you also have semantic, rhetoric and etymology in your tool belt. My bad.) Be it as it may, you have had the enjoyment of my criticism of the bible in response after response. So no need to misrepresent… but katecho be katecho. Whatever floats your boat. There are plenty of great accounts out there.… Read more »
This is the book that Thomas Nelson published, and then repudiated and pulled from the market. The book contains seven chapters, each one supposedly refuting a “lie” being spread about Jefferson by “liberals” in academia and the media. Here’s the title of Chapter 4: Lie #4: Thomas Jefferson Was a Racist Who Opposed Equality for Black Americans Yes, you read that right. Barton actually claims Jefferson was opposed to racism, and wanted full equality for blacks. All while owning a couple hundred black people. Apparently the only reason Jefferson owned a couple hundred slaves was because it made it easier… Read more »
Even a senior fellow at the conservative Discovery Institute denounced this book as unhistorical and riddled with unattributed quotations. I had not realized that World Net Daily press had reissued it earlier this year.
The book was pulled from publication because, among other things, it contained at least 14 claimed quotes that had no historical basis whatsoever. Many of the other quotes are out of context, and his arguments consistently cherry-pick the isolated quotes that sound good while ignoring mounds of contradictory evidence. In fact, the Jay W. Richards you speak of didn’t just denounce it as unhistorical himself – he asked 10 prominent Christian historians to review the book, and they denounced it as a bunch of hogwash. Barton has never been trained as a historian, and has literally no credentials whatsoever in… Read more »
And what do *you* think of Jefferson and his view of black men?
Goodness gracious! I believe whatever the New York Times and the ADL and the SPLC say I’m supposed to believe!
Don’t you???
I don’t know. I don’t read the NY Times and I don’t know what those other sources say. Apparently you do. So, what do they say that you are supposed to believe that you say you do believe?
The topic of Doug’s post, and my comment on the post, is not whether or not I agree with Jefferson’s views on race. The topic is David Barton’s book, in which he claims to “refute” several “lies” about Jefferson. Doug thinks highly of the book. I said that Barton not only hasn’t come close to accurately representing Jefferson’s views on race, he’s portraying them as pretty the exact opposite of what they were. Either I’m right or I’m wrong. And if you have evidence to disprove anything I said, feel free to post it. What do my views about Jefferson’s… Read more »
Nothing, although it’s interesting that you don’t want to answer the question.
It’s more interesting to speculate about why you want to change the topic from the accuracy of a respected author to the opinions of a comedy troll disqus account.
I’m just wondering if the troll is expressing his own opinions or opinions he finds likely to cause outrage.
I hope not to derail the discussion about Jefferson and Barton.
The “opinion” that I expressed is that David Barton is painting a false picture of Thomas Jefferson.
I really believe it. I’m not just saying it to “cause outrage.”
And maybe you didn’t notice, but it’s not simply “an opinion.” I presented quite a bit of evidence to back it up.
In other places you have hinted that Jeffersons views of blacks should emulated out of respect for our ancestors and because not doing so led to the current gay mirage pan sexual revolution. I am genuinely interested if you have anything other than snark to support this.
I said nothing like that on this thread.
If you have a comment or question about what I wrote on another thread, ask it there.
Well. Did or did not Barton misrepresent Jefferson’s views on race?
Yes. I’m as certain as I can be without having read the book that Barton is trying to use Jefferson to support his own ideology.
Yes, either you are right or you are wrong about Barton, and if you have evidence that I have suggested which it is feel free to post it. Both my questions stand, and it is as Christopher Casey notes, interesting that you don’t want to answer. Answer my questions and maybe I’ll answer yours.
LMAO
Yes, either you are right or you are wrong about Barton, and if you have evidence that I have suggested which it is feel free to post it.
English, please.
Thanks!
Come on gadfly steve berkowitz, have an opinion.
Not kidding anyone here 40A&AK, reading comprehension is not your problem. Which isn’t to say you don’t have one, or several. At the moment evasiveness is at the fore.
Yeah, that’s me – Mr. Evasive!
LMAO
As much as you say LMAO if your A wasn’t L all the way O a long time ago you must have one really big pale white A.
That was really uncalled for.
Ok, fine, for all I know maybe it isn’t all that pale. Not asking though.
Do either of your dads know you’re playing on the computer?
Ahhh! I guess this means I’m NEVER going to get an answer to my questions!
Said the pot to the kettle…
I was puzzled by your comment about the new twenty dollar bill the other day. Did you seem to compare Ethel Rosenberg and Harriet Tubman because the latter collected intelligence for the Union Army?
Nah. Just pointing out that this Tubman nonsense is just another mile marker on the superhighway to national suicide – death to the historic America and the people who created it. Why go at it with half measures? Let’s go whole hog. The “conservative Christian” Cruz already is talking about pardoning one Jewish traitor. Why not put another one on our currency? Here’s some good reading about Tubman. 20 years ago “conservatives” were raising hell about Tubman, saying she wasn’t even a minor figure in American history, but was being given pages of coverage in school textbooks out of political… Read more »
But I’ve since learned that Tubman helped the mass murderer John Brown plan the treasonous raid on Harper’s Ferry, which was put down by Robert E. Lee, in which something like 10 innocent bystanders and one Marine were killed. She also helped recruit volunteers for it. Apparently, she was going to take part in the raid, but fell ill and couldn’t travel. After John Brown was hanged, Tubman said “He did more in dying than 100 men could do in living.” Real nice lady. So, yeah, it turns out that I was even more on the spot than I knew.… Read more »
Why pay any attention? — some valid arguments not expressed as well elsewhere maybe?
Because history is important. We can’t lie about history in order to advance the cause of Christ.
Exactly what “valid arguments” can turn the man who wrote all those things Jefferson wrote that I quote above into a man who opposed racism and wanted full equality for blacks?
Please define racism.
Racism:
1) The existence of white gentiles in any number greater than zero.
2) Any idea or action that doesn’t hasten the day when the number of white gentiles in existence is zero.
Woah if true. So un-PC. Still, at least half of the things he says characterize black people apply pretty well to white people today. Am I racist for thinking so?
Am I racist for thinking so?
No; you’re racist for being white.
Oh, okay. Wait, you’re a racist for thinking I’m white!
No; I’m a racist because I’m white. That’s what racist means – white person.
All, I am not saying that Barton got Jefferson right. But it is manifest from the comments that many are just assuming what Barton must be saying. For example, Barton unpacks Jefferson’s heterodoxy in great detail — he is not claiming Jefferson as an evangelical at all.
But it is manifest from the comments that many are just assuming what Barton must be saying.
A few, maybe, but certainly not all. I didn’t assume that Barton used this title for the fourth chapter of his book.
Lie #4: Thomas Jefferson Was a Racist Who Opposed Equality for Black Americans
He really did write that it’s a “lie” that Jefferson was a racist who opposed equality for black Americans.
I think that many of us who have commented here have read excerpts both from Barton and from the Christian historians who think his work is distorted, inaccurate, and written only to promote a tea-party view of American history.
“… promote a tea-party view of American history.”
?????
Oh! I get it: you’re a leftist.
Before we start launching attacks against jillybean, remember her quip is in context of David Barton and his style of Beck-annointing Tea Party (see Justin’s comment).
Jilly is very capable of explaining her own words, but throwing bricks through the windows of that type of tea-partyism is something that I would have thought you wouldn’t resent given your sentiments on Cruz (namely his citizenship).
I don’t have sentiments, I have arguments and facts.
More of a centrist, I think, but it depends on the issue. But I generally dislike appeals to populism.
Watched a sermon of D. James Kennedy and aligned pretty much with what David Barton wrote.
That’s because Dr. James Kennedy was a Barton supporter. He probably took his notes on the subject straight from Barton.
David Barton has a bad reputation among the people I trust.
Does Barton have any credibility? Here is a video of him “anointing” Glenn Beck, a Mormon.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOM6JeXKkFw
Gross.
I agree. I don’t see how he’s qualified to testify to Jeffersons orthodoxy.
This article brings up the believable argument that Jefferson stopped advocating for the end of slavery due to financial reasons. 1790 is generally put out as the cut-off line after which he seemed to grow completely silent on matters of abolition. The article describes that in 1792, Jefferson wrote a letter to Washington stating that he had realized that simply by bearing children, his slaves were earning him a 4% annual return on investment. The “4% return” figure appears to be one that Jefferson came back to over and over again. Then, when his tobacco farm began to become unproductive,… Read more »
Came across Barton a few years back and always appreciated his willingness to go, as Wilson often does, into the lion’s den, as it were:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/bk6j07/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–1
I think there’s a couple of other interviews/videos with Stewart as well.
We just had David Barton here in Alaska, and he gave the best political/religious speech I’ve ever heard. Can’t wait to get the DVD we’re making (also there were Ravi Zacharias, Dinesh D’Souza and Ben Chavis).
He’s a real crowd pleaser!
I never saw – have you read the Throckmorton yet? It occurred to me because I happened to run across Throckmorton’s site today while researching another episode in colonial history, and his takedown of Barton appears quite thorough.
The Gospel Coalition just put out yet one more thorough takedown of David Barton.
Pastor Wilson, you said you’d be reading Barton’s critics next, but I still haven’t seen it. It was irresponsible to post a positive review of such an obviously false and misleading presentation of history.
Barton doesn’t do history, he does propaganda, and with your audience you should know better or at least show better discernment in what you post.
https://dougwils.com/books/review-getting-jefferson-right-fact-checking-claims-about-our-third-president.html
Probably should note it here, though.
Thank you! I asked three months ago if that had ever been done and no one pointed it out to me. I wonder, if he’s downgraded Barton’s score, why he didn’t note that here where Barton’s score is written. I’m also rather disturbed that he read a book by a non-historian whose basic MO is the creation of history via quote-mining, acknowledged that Barton was altering quotes in a manner that clearly was meant to mislead the reader, acknowledged that he was doing it in a partisan way, and yet still gave him 3 stars out of 5. It’s a… Read more »