Reporting on the Kansas Prayer Breakfast, Topeka Capital-Journal Covers David Barton Controversy

David Barton spoke at the Kansas Governor’s Prayer Breakfast today and among other things again said that the Constitution directly quotes the Bible. And if you don’t see it, you wouldn’t know a Bible verse if it bit you. So reports Phil Anderson of the Topeka C-J.
Anderson then provides quotes from me about the misleading statements Barton frequently makes at such meetings. He says some historians disagree with Barton about direct quotes from the Bible. I think it would be more accurate to say most if not all historians disagree with Barton on that point. Are there any actual historians who believe this?
In any case, I was very glad to see some balance in the article.

134 thoughts on “Reporting on the Kansas Prayer Breakfast, Topeka Capital-Journal Covers David Barton Controversy”

  1. Richard, I’ve skimmed through the Enns essay that you posted, and it seems to rely very heavily (perhaps exclusively) on subjective speculations of what the author of Genesis may have been thinking about when he wrote certain phrases. All of the objections that Enns listed in his bullet points can be answered with equally subjective and equally valid explanations that are consistent with Mosaic authorship. For example, Bill Fortenberry has often written about himself in the third person and there is no reason to assume that Moses could not have done so as well. I am looking for something more comprehensive that includes archaeological evidence and evidence from other texts as well as internal textual analysis.

  2. I’m afraid that you may have misunderstood my previous comment. I am not saying that both sides only have subjective evidence. I am claiming that your position is only supported by subjective speculation whereas my position has subjective answers to those speculations as well as objective evidence to support it. I am trying to find out if you actually do have any objective evidence to support your position.

  3. @ Bill
    Okay. I’ll do some research as time allows.
    But you use of the word ‘subjective’ to describe ‘both sides’ views’ is appropriate. Neither side can be sure that their view is ‘correct’. My position (such as it currently is) would be that honest enquiry about the provenance of these texts helps us to understand how we should understand them (the texts). I start from my own belief that God/Jesus is not a ‘magician’ (he stayed on the Cross – no ‘magic tricks’ there!), but uses human agents and human history (and indeed human frailty) in order to communicate with us. We have nothing to fear from the Pentateuch being not written by Moses; if this is the case (as I believe it is – though I’m always ‘open to other suggestions’), then our faith need not be threatened by it. 🙂

  4. Evidence unseen. Indeed.
    But seriously, I’m not convinced, especially by the responses to some of the ‘objections’. Of course, parts of what became the Torah existed long before the Exile through the oral tradition and probably also in writing, but the actual compilation of the Torah (which I think most agree was written as a single text) is widely judged to have taken place during and after the Exile.
    Many bible verses that might be used to ‘claim’ early, Mosaic authorship can also be interpreted in other ways. Remember that the cultures during these periods were probably nothing like as ‘literalists’ about things as us ‘modern westerners’; allegory played an important part in their dialectic, as it does in many cultures to this day.
    I find the arguments against early, Mosaic authorship more persuasive than those for it. But, in a sense, Bill, it ultimately doesn’t really matter: it’s a Person (the Word of God) we worship, not a (set of) book(s).

  5. Bill Fortenbury wrote:

    Most of the Bible was written long before the Roman Republic was formed.

    The Pentateuch was first written down around the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian Captivity, IIRC
    Traditionally, the Roman Republic dates from the overthrow of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (AKA Tarquin the Proud) in 509 BC.
    The Senate traditionally dates from before then, from 753 BC, contemporary with the oldest known written works of the prophets.

  6. FTR, Tom Paine argues in Common Sense that God was quite insulted when the Hebrews asked for a King. What am I? Chopped Liver?
    “In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion…Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
    Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom…

    “”…your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY.””

    —Paine is quoting 1 Samuel 8 in the second part there. That the Americans used the Bible against monarchy is a supportable claim.
    “by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin…”
    No kidding. The impious and impudent deist Tom Paine likening the Hebrew call for a king to original sin. Those were funky times.
    The Reformation was preceded by the discovery of America: As if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

    Tom Paine arguing God Hisself may have designed America to be a Christian nation, a Protestant one at that. No folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
    [We actually you can, but I didn’t.]
    http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/01/by-tom-van-dyke-perhaps-most-amazing.html

  7. Ken,
    The nobles of ancient Israel were not noble by birth but rather by position. They were akin to our senators and representatives in that they were chosen from among the common people. Thus, Ecclesiastes 10:17 is not a command for the king to be of noble blood but rather an observation that the nation benefits when her king has his father’s experience in government to aid him in his decisions.

  8. Jim,
    I have never claimed that the Constitution was transliterated from the Bible, nor have I ever claimed that the founders only considered the teachings of the Bible in their deliberations. I agree with you that the founders consulted many other sources of information such as the Greek and Roman histories as well as the histories of dozens of other civilizations. Where I disagree with you is in your claim that they consulted these histories independently of the Bible. This claim is not supported by the writings of the founders. Consider the following example from John Adams as an example:
    “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.” [Adams, Charles Francis, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1856, pg 45]
    According to Adams, the general principles of Christianity can only be supported and never disproven even through the study of writings intentionally written in opposition to those principles. Thus, when we find Adams quoting from these sources, we cannot take those quotes as evidence that he consulted them independently of the Scriptures. Adams himself has assured us that he believed the principles of Christianity to be eternal and immutable. In fact, he later wrote:
    “I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my Straitened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have Seen: and Such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future Investigation.” [Adams, Charles Francis, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1856, pg 85]
    Obviously Adams did not consult the histories of other nations independently of his study of the Bible, but can we conclude that this practice was adopted by other founders? According to Adams, we can. In the preface to his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, he wrote:
    “It can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg xv]
    As part of his defence of the American form of government, Adams made reference to many passages of Scripture and drew conclusions such as:
    “To expect self-denial from men, when they have a majority in their favour, and consequently power to gratify themselves, is to disbelieve all history and universal experience; it is to disbelieve Revelation and the Word of God, which informs us, the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 289]
    And:
    “In the institution of government it must be remembered, that although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 363]
    These and many other statements from Adams reveal that he recognized a biblical foundation upon which the American legal system was built. But we need not focus only on Adams. We could turn to a number of other founders and find similar statements. James Madison, for example, wrote that:
    “The belief in a God, all powerful, wise, and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world, and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources, nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.” [Madison, James, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 3, J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1865, pg 503-504]
    And a few days later he also wrote:
    “I concur with you at once in rejecting the idea maintained by some divines, of more zeal than discretion, that there is no road from nature up to nature’s God, and that all the knowledge of his existence and attributes which preceded the written revelation of them was derived from oral tradition. The doctrine is the more extraordinary, as it so directly contradicts the declarations you have cited from the written authority itself.” [Madison, James, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 3, J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1865, pg 505]
    These statements reveal to us that Madison, like John Adams, understood that studying multiple sources of information would only serve to strengthen the validity of the teachings found in the Bible.
    One of the clearest examples of Madison’s recognition of the Christian principles undergirding our government can be seen in his statement regarding religious freedom. There we find him writing:
    “The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious sects a legal equality. If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed … Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Ceasar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put assunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.” [Alley, Robert S., James Madison on Religious Liberty, Prometheus Books, New York, 1985, pg 89-90]
    It is clear from this statement that Madison, like the Baptists who influenced him, based his concept of religious freedom on the teachings of the Bible. This sentiment is repeated in his Memorial and Remonstrance where we read:
    “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of Divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man.” [Madison, James, A Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man, S. C. Ustick, Washington, 1828, pg 5-6]
    And later in that same Remonstrance, he argued that a particular bill should be voted down because:
    “The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.”
    Once again, we find an example of one of our founders basing his position in regards to proper government on the teachings of the Bible rather than on a mere examination of history. We could go on. I have already mentioned Benjamin Franklin’s statement regarding the scriptural requirements for rulers, but let me provide a little more detail of the context of that statement.
    Addording to Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention, Mr. Pinckney proposed that there be a minimum property requirement for elected officials. Madison recorded Dr. Franklin rising up in strong opposition to this idea. He wrote:
    “Doctor Franklin expressed his dislike to everything that tended to debase the spirit of the common people. If honesty was often the companion of wealth, and if poverty was exposed to peculiar temptation, it was not less true that the possession of property increased the desire of more property. Some of the greatest rogues he was ever acquainted with were the richest rogues. We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness. [This statement actually is a direct quote from Exodus 18:21] This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe; and if it should betray a great partiality to the rich, will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing to this country.”
    After Franklin was finished, Madison tells us that “The motion of Mr. Pinckney was rejected by so general a no, that the States were not called.” Dr. Franklin specifically chose to rely on a reference to Scripture to prove his point, and when he did so, he very effectively ended the debate on that subject.
    We could go on again and consider the claim of Gouverneur Morris that:
    “This hour of distress will come. It comes to all, and the moment of affliction is known to Him alone, whose divine providence exalts or depresses states and kingdoms. Not by the blind dictates of arbitrary will. Not by a tyrannous and despotic mandate. But in proportion to their obedience or disobedience of his just and holy laws. It is he who commands us that we abstain from wrong. It is he who tells us, ‘do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you.'” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 465]
    Clearly, this founder understood that the fate of our nation was dependent upon our obedience to the “just and holy laws” of God. And this was not an isolated sentiment of Mr. Morris. He expressed it often in his writings stating at one time that:
    “It is justice, says the book of wisdom, which establisheth a nation. A view of Europe would naturally lead a pietist to apprehend, that the Almighty had prepared a scourge for the abominations, which prevailed among the people.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 236]
    And in another place:
    “You may perhaps take a wider range, and ask whether this principle would not operate injuriously, by depriving the government of pecuniary resource, when engaged hereafter in a war not only just but unavoidable. to this I reply, in the language of Holy Writ, ‘thou shalt not do evil that good only just may come of it.'” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 286-288]
    And yet again we find him writing:
    “I do, not, my dear Sir, look westward for the sunrise of freedom. My eyes are turned to, and steadily fixed on the east. My trust is not in a President, Senate, and house of Representatives, but in Him who governs empires, the world, the universe.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 302]
    The veneration which Mr. Morris had for the Christian religion can be seen in his comments on the failures of other governments such as this statement about Frederick the Great:
    “Frederick the Great was, in one respect, a very little and shortsighted politician. His vanity led him to sacrifice the power and safety of his successors to purchase the incense of a few wits, who had undertaken to destroy the Christian religion; and here that has happened which is written; ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, which have set the children’s teeth on edge.’ The destruction of religion has loosened the bonds of duty, and those of allegiance must ever be weak, where there is a defect both of piety and morality.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 214]
    And in reference to the French Revolution, he wrote:
    “Lastly, it is a duty to God. It is to his high Tribunal, that the monarchs of the earth must render a solemn account of their conduct; and he requires of them, that it be regulated by the principles of truth and justice, which alone endure forever, and which forever establish the peace and prosperity of empires.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 2, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 523]
    I could go on and on and on. Time does not permit me to delve into Hamilton’s statements regarding Christianity and the French Revolution. I will simply point out that his view was identical to that which we have just read from Morris. And I will have to wait until a later time to give even a brief overview of James Wilson’s statements regarding the Christian foundations of our nation. I will merely content myself for now with conveying his emphatic statement that “Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.” And of course, I cannot mention that statement without also pointing out his claim that: “Christianity is part of the common law.” This meager posting will have to suffice for now, but let me assure you that there is much, much more that could be presented.

  9. Ken,
    That’s true. You don’t see the concept of “republicanism” explicitly discussed anywhere in the Bible. You have to “read” it “in” there. The concept of Kingdom on the other hand IS explicitly discussed and seemingly endorsed in the Bible (Jesus has, according to the Bible, a “Kingdom” of Heaven not a “republic” of Heaven). Though, a lot of interesting and notable thinkers and figures of the past who argued the case of republicanism DID try to “find” it in the Bible by reading it in there.

  10. Bill Fortenberry says:
    March 29, 2013 at 10:58 am
    “Ecclesiastes 10:16 says: “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,””
    and 10:17 says: “Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles,”
    I.e. the king should come from nobility.

  11. In all fairness to Mr. Willmer, you can’t really prove a negative. There is no evidence besides legend that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; it may have been written by Manny Kleinmetz during the Babylonian Captivity for all we know.

  12. The connection between the US Constitution and the Bible is minimal. Re the “49 parallels” you can throw spaghetti against the wall and find such parallels between any two references.
    What we need are direct connections and they are miminal. Mr. Fortenberry does a good job at looking for needles in haystacks and may have found a few that eluded Dr. Frazer.
    A lot of the patriotic ministers (the most notable of whom were rationalistic and unitarian) did quote the Bible in conjunction with the natural law reasoning to justify revolution. They came up with interesting, novel, unorthodox interpretations teaching why Romans 13 ought not stand in the way of revolution to tyrannical government. (Samuel West concluded St. Paul may have been joking.)
    But when it came time to writing the Constitution, the biblical citations played a very minimal role. Even the study much toted by Christian Nationlists by Donald S. Lutz et al. demonstrates this.

  13. Mr. Anderson doesn’t provide any details on Barton’s claims that the Constitution contains direct quotes from the Bible, but I found another article which quotes him as previously saying:
    “You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause,” he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. “Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible’s all over it! Now we as Christians don’t tend to recognize that. We think it’s a secular document; we’ve bought into their lies. It’s not.”
    [Source: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/david-barton-christianizing-history ]
    If these are the same “quotations” that Barton was referring to at the Kansas prayer breakfast, then I have to say that his claim is fairly accurate. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that these sections are “direct” quotations, but it is certainly accurate to claim that they are nearly identical to the biblical model. In my research, I have discovered 49 clauses in the Constitution which have direct parallels in the Scriptures. I list all 49 of them in the conclusion of my book Hidden Facts of the Founding Era which can be read online at: http://christian76.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Conclusion.pdf

    1. Bill – I read your list at the link you provided and to me your reasoning is not convincing.
      For example you say that Numbers 1:1-16 was the inspiration for the Senate. The passage reads:

      1 The LORD spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said: 2 “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one. 3 You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. 4 One man from each tribe, each the head of his family, is to help you. 5 These are the names of the men who are to assist you: from Reuben, Elizur son of Shedeur; 6 from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai; 7 from Judah, Nahshon son of Amminadab; 8 from Issachar, Nethanel son of Zuar; 9 from Zebulun, Eliab son of Helon; 10 from the sons of Joseph: from Ephraim, Elishama son of Ammihud; from Manasseh, Gamaliel son of Pedahzur; 11 from Benjamin, Abidan son of Gideoni; 12 from Dan, Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai; 13 from Asher, Pagiel son of Ocran; 14 from Gad, Eliasaph son of Deuel; 15 from Naphtali, Ahira son of Enan.” 16 These were the men appointed from the community, the leaders of their ancestral tribes. They were the heads of the clans of Israel.

      These men helped with the census and they were appointed by God. You have to want to find what you think is there. You would also need statements from the framers that these passages were influential on them.
      One more example, you say the Kings of Israel were chosen by the elders of Israel. You are changing the clear teaching of the Old Testament here to fit in with your views. You list 2 Samuel 5:3 where the elders anointed David. However, David was clearly chosen by God (I Samuel 16) long before the elders performed this ceremony of affirmation. There was no election, except by God. Lincoln described our system as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is not at all what Israel was.

  14. Warren,
    The men listed in Numbers 1:1-16 are described as the princes of Israel, and they are mentioned several times throughout the Bible as having rulership over the tribes. Numbers 7:2, for example, describes them as being “over them that were numbered.” I Chronicles 27:16-22 again lists them as rulers, and in Ezekiel 45:8 and following, the princes are given specific instructions for ruling. Many more examples could be listed, but let me move on to your next point.
    You said that I would need statements from the framers that these passages were influential on them. Let me provide one such statement in regards to the senate being predicated upon the government of ancient Israel. John Adams, in his Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, wrote: “”This at the least is certain, that the government of the Hebrews instituted by God, had a judge, the great Sanhedrim, and general assemblies of the people.”(1) Now, Adams, in referring to the Sanhedrin, makes reference to a different set of individuals than the princes of Israel which I referenced. He was referring to the appointment of the seventy in Numbers 11:16-17, and I am willing to concede that the Senate may have been based on this model of the Sanhedrin rather than on that of the princes. Nevertheless, this statement by Adams demonstrates that he recognized the republican nature of the government established by the Pentateuch.
    In regards to the election of the kings, this can be supported by many additional passages such as I Samuel 11:15 and II Chronicles 23, but one of the best evidences of this can be found in the rejection of Rehoboam as king in I Kings 12. When the ten northern tribes say that Rehoboam would not listen to their elders, they responded by asking: “What portion have we in David?” They then rejected Rehoboam and elected their own king instead. Here we see that, in spite of the fact that God chose whom He wanted to be king, yet He still allowed the people the autonomy of deciding for themselves whether or not they would accept His choice. This explains why David did not become king on the day that he was chosen for that role by God but rather many years later when he was elected to that position by the elders. This is also consistent with the record in II Samuel 2:4 that David was originally made just king over the tribe of Judah, and he did not become the king of Israel until the other elders chose to make him so.
    (1) Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg 149]

    1. Bill – What you are missing is the rest of what Adams said. He said pagans Hengist and Horsa were foundations of the new government. Writing his wife about the process of choosing a national seal, Adams wrote

      Mr. Jefferson proposed. The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.

      Adams, as a politician, recognized that a biblical illustration might help with his defense but this does not mean that Madison and the others went to the Bible for their ideas about what to put in the Constitution. Adams was not opposed to the general principles of Christianity and said that the revolution was based on them and the general principles of English liberty. Adams stance is far from the picture you are painting – of a group of men who wanted to implement a biblical government.

  15. Bill Fortenberry
    March 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    You and Barton are both stretching things quite a bit to claim the constitution is based on the bible. The fact that some ideas occur in both does not mean they based it on the bible. A good idea is a good idea, which is why you can find them in more than one place. For example, not having your leaders be citizens of other nations is just common sense. Nothing “biblical” about it. I’m pretty sure you had to be a citizen in ancient rome or greece to hold political office there as well.

  16. Why would you need to trot out historians to check Barton’s claims about Bible quotes in the Constitution? Any literate adult is able to debunk that lie.

  17. Thank goodness for balance. But I see the Kansas Governor’s Prayer Breakfast featuring Barton continued in spite of my protest email, hahaha. (Just kidding . . . sort of.)

  18. Bill Fortenberry says:
    March 28, 2013 at 1:03 am
    “There have been many rulers who were not only citizens of nations other than the ones that they ruled but also not citizens of the nation that they ruled until the moment that they claimed the throne.”
    And the founding fathers were aware of the problems non-citizen rulers caused and realized it wasn’t a good idea. No bible needed to determine that.

  19. Ken,
    The idea that leaders should not be citizens of other nations may be common sense to you with the advantage of more than 225 years of that rule being in place in America, but it was certainly not mere common sense during the time of our nation’s founding. There have been many rulers who were not only citizens of nations other than the ones that they ruled but also not citizens of the nation that they ruled until the moment that they claimed the throne. George I of England is a perfect example. He was a citizen of Hanover until he was chosen to be king of England in 1714 at the age of 54 without even the ability to communicate in the language of the people that he had been chosen to rule.
    http://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=george1

  20. That is certainly a possibility, Ken. After all, I would maintain that God established the principle of requiring rulers to be natural born citizens precisely because that requirement is more beneficial in the long run than the practice of electing non-citizens, and I do not doubt that it is possible for men to come to the same conclusion through a proper examination of history especially at this point after witnessing the success of that practice in America. However, the example of George I demonstrates that this is not a necessary nor even a commonsensical conclusion. Most historians agree that George was a much better choice than the natural born James that the Jacobites attempted to place on the throne, and we could discuss dozens of other examples of foreign born rulers who excelled their natural born counterparts. Perhaps you could point out some other legal code which contained a similar clause, and we could discuss which one was more likely to have influenced the founders.

  21. Jim,
    Would you mind pointing out what historical document you think that the founders might have consulted in order to conclude that the President should be a natural born citizen?

  22. You are overlooking several things about that statement, Warren. First, it is not entirely clear whether the reference to political principles and form of government was made by Adams or by Jefferson, but of course, this is of minor importance since both men were instrumental in the founding of our nation. Second, this statement is from a letter dated August 14, 1776. Therefore, it cannot be a reference to the American form of Government but rather to the British government which does, in fact, trace its origin back to the Saxons.

  23. BTW, I should have said that a major piece of ‘corroborative evidence’ that points to the ‘layered’ natured of the Book of Leviticus is the fact that the Samaritans accepted only part of the Book in their canon of scripture. They reject as canonical what they regard as the later additions.
    Back to the first of the Creation stories: it is with noting that the version we know has God doing TWO jobs on Day Six. There is a theory that the ‘source text’ for what is now in the Pentateuch actually had God busy for seven days, but that the text was adjusted to make the point about the Sabbath. Fair enough: ‘sabbaths’ are important (resting is good for people), and I regard it as entirely fitting that the allegory should have be adjusted to make that point. It is also interesting to reflect that, according to Christian doctrine, the job of ‘recreation’ was completed on Easter Day – the ‘Christian Sabbath’.

  24. The latest part of the Pentateuch is probably the latter part of the Book of Leviticus – i.e. the part with all the ‘death sentences’; a well-established view is that the form of the Book was finalized AFTER the Exile, and perhaps represents attempts to ‘purify’ the religion with some ‘harsh measures’ and so ‘please God’ and avoid further crises. Something we might well learn from this is that such ‘purification through harsh measures’ is not what God is looking for (or at least it should not been seen as the way to ‘get right with God’) – something borne out by the example of Christ (although some of Christ’s teaching could be seen as quite ‘harsh’ … or at least ‘difficult’) as recorded in the Holy Gospels.

  25. BTW, I should have said that a major piece of ‘corroborative evidence’ that points to the ‘layered’ natured of the Book of Leviticus is the fact that the Samaritans accepted only part of the Book in their canon of scripture. They reject as canonical what they regard as the later additions.
    Back to the first of the Creation stories: it is with noting that the version we know has God doing TWO jobs on Day Six. There is a theory that the ‘source text’ for what is now in the Pentateuch actually had God busy for seven days, but that the text was adjusted to make the point about the Sabbath. Fair enough: ‘sabbaths’ are important (resting is good for people), and I regard it as entirely fitting that the allegory should have be adjusted to make that point. It is also interesting to reflect that, according to Christian doctrine, the job of ‘recreation’ was completed on Easter Day – the ‘Christian Sabbath’.

  26. The latest part of the Pentateuch is probably the latter part of the Book of Leviticus – i.e. the part with all the ‘death sentences’; a well-established view is that the form of the Book was finalized AFTER the Exile, and perhaps represents attempts to ‘purify’ the religion with some ‘harsh measures’ and so ‘please God’ and avoid further crises. Something we might well learn from this is that such ‘purification through harsh measures’ is not what God is looking for (or at least it should not been seen as the way to ‘get right with God’) – something borne out by the example of Christ (although some of Christ’s teaching could be seen as quite ‘harsh’ … or at least ‘difficult’) as recorded in the Holy Gospels.

  27. Just on the JEPT hypothesis: it should be noted that ‘Elohim’ is in fact a PLURAL, and the (hypothesized) ‘E’ source may well be … wait for it … CANAANITE in origin (i.e. pre-Moses).
    The ‘P’ source is probably, in the view a considerable body of opionion, originates from the seventh century.

  28. Apparently the Roman Republic was based on the Bible too, even before it was written. So was the system of government in Athens, even earlier.
    Seriously – have a look at the pre-Imperial form of government in Rome. Compare it to the Bible. Now compare the current US system to the biblical Isaelite one. Now compare Republican Rome with the US.

    Actually, an even closer comparison might be pre-Republican Rome. The USA is in many ways an 18th century monarchy with the king elected every 4 years, rather than for life. Certainly the POTUS has more power than most 19th century, and nearly all 20th century, monarchs.

  29. Well, I would judge the things you have cited as subjective evidence. We must remember that the oral tradition was very strong (those guys almost certainly made much more use of their capacity to remember than do we!): why could people not have remembered the price for which Joseph was sold? and why should not the Suzerainty treaty format not have been used by first century writer(s)?
    I think we all have to face the fact that there are things about which we cannot be sure – and to do so is actually part of the ‘journey of faith’.

  30. Just on the JEPT hypothesis: it should be noted that ‘Elohim’ is in fact a PLURAL, and the (hypothesized) ‘E’ source may well be … wait for it … CANAANITE in origin (i.e. pre-Moses).
    The ‘P’ source is probably, in the view a considerable body of opionion, originates from the seventh century.

  31. Apparently the Roman Republic was based on the Bible too, even before it was written. So was the system of government in Athens, even earlier.
    Seriously – have a look at the pre-Imperial form of government in Rome. Compare it to the Bible. Now compare the current US system to the biblical Isaelite one. Now compare Republican Rome with the US.

    Actually, an even closer comparison might be pre-Republican Rome. The USA is in many ways an 18th century monarchy with the king elected every 4 years, rather than for life. Certainly the POTUS has more power than most 19th century, and nearly all 20th century, monarchs.

  32. Well, I would judge the things you have cited as subjective evidence. We must remember that the oral tradition was very strong (those guys almost certainly made much more use of their capacity to remember than do we!): why could people not have remembered the price for which Joseph was sold? and why should not the Suzerainty treaty format not have been used by first century writer(s)?
    I think we all have to face the fact that there are things about which we cannot be sure – and to do so is actually part of the ‘journey of faith’.

  33. I guess I should have used the term empirical evidence. I have yet to find any evidence for the late dating of the Pentateuch along the lines of Joseph being sold for the correct price of a second millennium slave rather than a first millennium slave or Deuteronomy being written in a second millennium Suzerainty treaty format. Do you have any evidence along those lines which supports a late date for the Pentateuch?

  34. I guess I should have used the term empirical evidence. I have yet to find any evidence for the late dating of the Pentateuch along the lines of Joseph being sold for the correct price of a second millennium slave rather than a first millennium slave or Deuteronomy being written in a second millennium Suzerainty treaty format. Do you have any evidence along those lines which supports a late date for the Pentateuch?

  35. What I’m really saying is that I think it is reasonable to say that the Pentateuch is ‘attributable’ to Moses and consistent with he may have written and said (i.e. it is ‘in the Mosaic Tradition’), but that it was not itself a ‘single text’ written by Moses. This understanding IMO sits best with the circumstantial evidence to hand, there being no truly objective evidence for either of our positions.
    This is my contention, and I want you, Bill, to understand this before things degenerate into a ‘my-theory’s-better-than-yours’ game. 🙂

  36. The documentary hypothesis was developed to explain clear inconsistencies in the texts. It is a hypothesis, and I’m not pretending otherwise.
    I still don’t see how your position, Bill, is backed by OBJECTIVE evidence. Perhaps you could itemize this evidence?
    (I know that one might conclude that there having been some other authorship might mean that Jesus was ‘lying’, but we must remember that we [as modern, ‘scientific’ westerners] tend to take a more ‘literalist’ line than those from other cultures. The insistence on the part of some that the creation stories are ‘historical fact’ is an example of this ‘literalist’ mindset; most of us now accept that the function of these stories was not to be a ‘historical record’, but to be allegories that contain profound truths. Perhaps we are thus viewing these stories more in the manner intended by their authors? I think we are. And it is generally accepted in mainstream theological circles that each Gospel account is [with the possible exception of Mark’s] not the work of single person, although each is ‘attributed’ to one man.)

  37. In all fairness to Mr. Willmer, you can’t really prove a negative. There is no evidence besides legend that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; it may have been written by Manny Kleinmetz during the Babylonian Captivity for all we know.

  38. I’m afraid that you may have misunderstood my previous comment. I am not saying that both sides only have subjective evidence. I am claiming that your position is only supported by subjective speculation whereas my position has subjective answers to those speculations as well as objective evidence to support it. I am trying to find out if you actually do have any objective evidence to support your position.

  39. What I’m really saying is that I think it is reasonable to say that the Pentateuch is ‘attributable’ to Moses and consistent with he may have written and said (i.e. it is ‘in the Mosaic Tradition’), but that it was not itself a ‘single text’ written by Moses. This understanding IMO sits best with the circumstantial evidence to hand, there being no truly objective evidence for either of our positions.
    This is my contention, and I want you, Bill, to understand this before things degenerate into a ‘my-theory’s-better-than-yours’ game. 🙂

  40. The documentary hypothesis was developed to explain clear inconsistencies in the texts. It is a hypothesis, and I’m not pretending otherwise.
    I still don’t see how your position, Bill, is backed by OBJECTIVE evidence. Perhaps you could itemize this evidence?
    (I know that one might conclude that there having been some other authorship might mean that Jesus was ‘lying’, but we must remember that we [as modern, ‘scientific’ westerners] tend to take a more ‘literalist’ line than those from other cultures. The insistence on the part of some that the creation stories are ‘historical fact’ is an example of this ‘literalist’ mindset; most of us now accept that the function of these stories was not to be a ‘historical record’, but to be allegories that contain profound truths. Perhaps we are thus viewing these stories more in the manner intended by their authors? I think we are. And it is generally accepted in mainstream theological circles that each Gospel account is [with the possible exception of Mark’s] not the work of single person, although each is ‘attributed’ to one man.)

  41. @ Bill
    Okay. I’ll do some research as time allows.
    But you use of the word ‘subjective’ to describe ‘both sides’ views’ is appropriate. Neither side can be sure that their view is ‘correct’. My position (such as it currently is) would be that honest enquiry about the provenance of these texts helps us to understand how we should understand them (the texts). I start from my own belief that God/Jesus is not a ‘magician’ (he stayed on the Cross – no ‘magic tricks’ there!), but uses human agents and human history (and indeed human frailty) in order to communicate with us. We have nothing to fear from the Pentateuch being not written by Moses; if this is the case (as I believe it is – though I’m always ‘open to other suggestions’), then our faith need not be threatened by it. 🙂

  42. Richard, I’ve skimmed through the Enns essay that you posted, and it seems to rely very heavily (perhaps exclusively) on subjective speculations of what the author of Genesis may have been thinking about when he wrote certain phrases. All of the objections that Enns listed in his bullet points can be answered with equally subjective and equally valid explanations that are consistent with Mosaic authorship. For example, Bill Fortenberry has often written about himself in the third person and there is no reason to assume that Moses could not have done so as well. I am looking for something more comprehensive that includes archaeological evidence and evidence from other texts as well as internal textual analysis.

  43. @ Bill
    This is IMO a good essay about the book of Genesis: http://biologos.org/uploads/resources/enns_scholarly_essay3.pdf
    Obviously, this is just for the soup course. As I’ve implied in my comment above, there is much to do before we get to the coffee and nuts (a ‘soundbite’ or glib approach, whether arguing for or against ‘early’ authorship, would IMO be disrespectful). I am, as it happens, going to have to write something myself on this kind of thing in the next few months, so maybe I’ll start early and see how we get on …

  44. I’ll work on such a presentation if you want, Bill. If you think it important, I’ll make time (it’s not something to which one can do justice in a few minutes – we must respect these texts whatever the circumstances under which they were written, and the precise nature of how they should be interpreted).

  45. Evidence unseen. Indeed.
    But seriously, I’m not convinced, especially by the responses to some of the ‘objections’. Of course, parts of what became the Torah existed long before the Exile through the oral tradition and probably also in writing, but the actual compilation of the Torah (which I think most agree was written as a single text) is widely judged to have taken place during and after the Exile.
    Many bible verses that might be used to ‘claim’ early, Mosaic authorship can also be interpreted in other ways. Remember that the cultures during these periods were probably nothing like as ‘literalists’ about things as us ‘modern westerners’; allegory played an important part in their dialectic, as it does in many cultures to this day.
    I find the arguments against early, Mosaic authorship more persuasive than those for it. But, in a sense, Bill, it ultimately doesn’t really matter: it’s a Person (the Word of God) we worship, not a (set of) book(s).

  46. Here is an excellent overview of the evidence in favor of an early date for the Pentateuch. Can either of you present an equally comprehensive list for late date position?

  47. @ Bill
    This is IMO a good essay about the book of Genesis: http://biologos.org/uploads/resources/enns_scholarly_essay3.pdf
    Obviously, this is just for the soup course. As I’ve implied in my comment above, there is much to do before we get to the coffee and nuts (a ‘soundbite’ or glib approach, whether arguing for or against ‘early’ authorship, would IMO be disrespectful). I am, as it happens, going to have to write something myself on this kind of thing in the next few months, so maybe I’ll start early and see how we get on …

  48. I’ll work on such a presentation if you want, Bill. If you think it important, I’ll make time (it’s not something to which one can do justice in a few minutes – we must respect these texts whatever the circumstances under which they were written, and the precise nature of how they should be interpreted).

  49. Here is an excellent overview of the evidence in favor of an early date for the Pentateuch. Can either of you present an equally comprehensive list for late date position?

  50. That’s almost certainly correct, Zoe.
    When the Babylonians first ‘raided’ Jerusalem in the early 6th century, it seems that they found no Torah there (it is highly unlikely that they would have done so and not mentioned it); it was almost certainly the fact of the Exile that caused the leaders of the Jewish community decide to write down what had previously been passed on by the oral tradition as a precaution against the stories being lost as a result of the community being dispersed or worse.
    Parts of the Nevi’im (and Ketuvim?) were written down earlier – with the earliest around the middle of the 8th century, as you suggest.
    The Torah probably did not fully assume the form with which we are familiar until the after the return to Jerusalem (i.e. in the Persian period). Much of the ‘historical’ texts were later still in the writing, with the books of Maccabees being (for obvious reasons) the most recent of all (written in the late 2nd or early 1st century BC).
    I think understanding all this is very important; it helps to inform us as to how we should interpret these texts.

  51. Bill Fortenbury wrote:

    Most of the Bible was written long before the Roman Republic was formed.

    The Pentateuch was first written down around the 6th century BC, during the Babylonian Captivity, IIRC
    Traditionally, the Roman Republic dates from the overthrow of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (AKA Tarquin the Proud) in 509 BC.
    The Senate traditionally dates from before then, from 753 BC, contemporary with the oldest known written works of the prophets.

  52. That’s almost certainly correct, Zoe.
    When the Babylonians first ‘raided’ Jerusalem in the early 6th century, it seems that they found no Torah there (it is highly unlikely that they would have done so and not mentioned it); it was almost certainly the fact of the Exile that caused the leaders of the Jewish community decide to write down what had previously been passed on by the oral tradition as a precaution against the stories being lost as a result of the community being dispersed or worse.
    Parts of the Nevi’im (and Ketuvim?) were written down earlier – with the earliest around the middle of the 8th century, as you suggest.
    The Torah probably did not fully assume the form with which we are familiar until the after the return to Jerusalem (i.e. in the Persian period). Much of the ‘historical’ texts were later still in the writing, with the books of Maccabees being (for obvious reasons) the most recent of all (written in the late 2nd or early 1st century BC).
    I think understanding all this is very important; it helps to inform us as to how we should interpret these texts.

  53. Ken,
    The nobles of ancient Israel were not noble by birth but rather by position. They were akin to our senators and representatives in that they were chosen from among the common people. Thus, Ecclesiastes 10:17 is not a command for the king to be of noble blood but rather an observation that the nation benefits when her king has his father’s experience in government to aid him in his decisions.

  54. Jim,
    You should note that, in my very first comment in this thread, I said:
    “I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that these sections are ‘direct’ quotations, but it is certainly accurate to claim that they are nearly identical to the biblical model.”
    In regards to John Adams’ reference to the general principles of Christianity, I started writing and ended up with a seven page article, so I’ll just post it to my website and let you read it there. Here’s the link:
    http://www.increasinglearning.com/general-principles.html

  55. Jim,
    You should note that, in my very first comment in this thread, I said:
    “I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that these sections are ‘direct’ quotations, but it is certainly accurate to claim that they are nearly identical to the biblical model.”
    In regards to John Adams’ reference to the general principles of Christianity, I started writing and ended up with a seven page article, so I’ll just post it to my website and let you read it there. Here’s the link:
    http://www.increasinglearning.com/general-principles.html

  56. FTR, Tom Paine argues in Common Sense that God was quite insulted when the Hebrews asked for a King. What am I? Chopped Liver?
    “In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion…Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
    Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom…

    “”…your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY.””

    —Paine is quoting 1 Samuel 8 in the second part there. That the Americans used the Bible against monarchy is a supportable claim.
    “by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin…”
    No kidding. The impious and impudent deist Tom Paine likening the Hebrew call for a king to original sin. Those were funky times.
    The Reformation was preceded by the discovery of America: As if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

    Tom Paine arguing God Hisself may have designed America to be a Christian nation, a Protestant one at that. No folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
    [We actually you can, but I didn’t.]
    http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/01/by-tom-van-dyke-perhaps-most-amazing.html

  57. Ken,
    That’s true. You don’t see the concept of “republicanism” explicitly discussed anywhere in the Bible. You have to “read” it “in” there. The concept of Kingdom on the other hand IS explicitly discussed and seemingly endorsed in the Bible (Jesus has, according to the Bible, a “Kingdom” of Heaven not a “republic” of Heaven). Though, a lot of interesting and notable thinkers and figures of the past who argued the case of republicanism DID try to “find” it in the Bible by reading it in there.

  58. Bill Fortenberry says:
    March 29, 2013 at 10:58 am
    “Ecclesiastes 10:16 says: “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,””
    and 10:17 says: “Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles,”
    I.e. the king should come from nobility.

  59. JR – ” I think most serious scholars argue the Bible played a role along with a lot of other sources. “
    From my secular perspective I agree completely.
    As long as we’re on Adams, this is from the preface of his A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787 (1):
    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
    The simple principles of nature, and to expand that a bit, the truths which are self evident, do not require a Moses or an Aquinas or a priest or minister. Although, if you arrive at the simple principles of Nature via Aquinas rather than the stoics or simple reasoning based on nature and the senses, then bully.
    Whatever the tradition(s) had been prior to the United States of America coming into fruition, the trend was toward separating governance from top down divine command and toward bottom up human participation and direction based on reason and virtue. How the citizens derived the morals and ethics compatible with representative republican government was multifold and not the government’s business (this is certainly not strictly a position held by heathen secularists).
    This broad conception expressed by Adams is wholly incompatible with the thesis that the Constitution is based exclusively on Christianity or the Bible or that all things be measured by the Bible and Christianity – to the exclusion of other paths to good and virtuous citizen participation. It does not exclude Hinduism, Buddhism or the study of pure philosophy and moral development attached to no gods at all. But it wholly comports with the general principles of Christianity derived from the Bible and does not exclude Christianity as a source of moral and ethical and spiritual inspiration. It just does not give exclusivity or favor across the board.
    Again, founded on the “simple principles of nature” (and a whole lot of comparative analyses of historical precedent).

  60. Well I don’t anyone argues the Bible played *no* role independent of the other sources. I think most serious scholars argue the Bible played a role along with a lot of other sources. Even Dr. Frazer’s “theistic rationalism” is a mean between traditional orthodox biblical Christianity and strict deism.
    Re the Adams’ quotations, they were taken 1813 when he was at his most heterodox. According to Adams, the Bible was the “best book” not because it was inerrant or infallible, but because it agreed with HIM and HIS PHILOSOPHY that was the result of reason.
    Likewise Adams’ general principles of Christianity united “Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants ‘qui ne croyent rien’ [Protestants who believe in nothing].” These principles were also, according to Adams, supported by Voltaire and Rousseau. On a personal note I have no problem with this kind of “Christianity.” Dr. Frazer terms it “theistic rationalism.” And I’m sure Mr. Fortenberry will give us some kind of clever explanation as to why this is all consistent with traditional biblical Christianity. Fire aware Bill.

  61. BF – “Most of the Bible was written long before the Roman Republic was formed.”
    And the Roman Republic adopted the arts, science and general/political philosophy of the preceding Greeks. And that tradition, including Solon and Athenian Democracy as well as the works of Plato, Aristotle, et al., precedes and/or coincides in time with the writing of most of the elements of the Tanakh and certainly before its canonization and certainly well before the canonization of scripture into what is now the Christian Bible.

  62. BF – “I have never claimed that the Constitution was transliterated from the Bible, nor have I ever claimed that the founders only considered the teachings of the Bible in their deliberations.”
    But the subject of the post is Barton and his “direct quote” mantra. You said he had a case. I asked for evidence to that end. You changed the subject to you and a different argument. Apparently you agree that he is mistaken on this point.
    As to Adam’s basic Christian principles, I believe that if you search the American Creation archives, Jon Rowe has unwound this one on more than one occasion. In short, and from my own reading of Adam’s and his correspondence to Jefferson, as well as giving consideration to Barton’s version, and input by Chris Rodda, Ed Brayton, and Rowe, it’s clear that Adam’s is referring to the general principles of morality and ethical behavior that can be found in the Bible but also in the wisdom of the philosophers and wise sages from classical antiquity forward. Even pagans and atheists comported with the general principles according to Adam’s. But that’s not surprising considering how much pagan philosophy was brought into Christianity starting roughly with Augustine. (Not to mention the echoes of Hellenistic philosophy and especially late Stoicism in Paul.)

  63. Zoe – I am reading a book now about the founders and the classics. One can easily make the case that the Greek and Roman writers and philosophers has direct influence on the form of government we have. Note that we have a Senate as the Romans did and we call our legislative building the Capitol (Capitolium), a decidedly unChristian designation.
    And yet, the chaplains held church services in the Capitol. Clearly, Christianity in its various forms influenced some of the founders; whereas for others the classical writers and philosophers were more influential. They found some principles that they could all agree about. And I should add that the early Baptists and dissenting churches were some of the biggest champions of separation of church and state – both ways. The Baptist Leland applauded the rationalist Jefferson because they agreed on the separation principle. I wish more Baptists today would embrace their heritage.

  64. Ken,
    Ecclesiastes 10:16 says: “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,” and Isaiah 3:4 is pronouncing that God will send judgement against Jerusalem by causing them to be ruled by children.

  65. JR – ” I think most serious scholars argue the Bible played a role along with a lot of other sources. “
    From my secular perspective I agree completely.
    As long as we’re on Adams, this is from the preface of his A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, 1787 (1):
    “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
    The simple principles of nature, and to expand that a bit, the truths which are self evident, do not require a Moses or an Aquinas or a priest or minister. Although, if you arrive at the simple principles of Nature via Aquinas rather than the stoics or simple reasoning based on nature and the senses, then bully.
    Whatever the tradition(s) had been prior to the United States of America coming into fruition, the trend was toward separating governance from top down divine command and toward bottom up human participation and direction based on reason and virtue. How the citizens derived the morals and ethics compatible with representative republican government was multifold and not the government’s business (this is certainly not strictly a position held by heathen secularists).
    This broad conception expressed by Adams is wholly incompatible with the thesis that the Constitution is based exclusively on Christianity or the Bible or that all things be measured by the Bible and Christianity – to the exclusion of other paths to good and virtuous citizen participation. It does not exclude Hinduism, Buddhism or the study of pure philosophy and moral development attached to no gods at all. But it wholly comports with the general principles of Christianity derived from the Bible and does not exclude Christianity as a source of moral and ethical and spiritual inspiration. It just does not give exclusivity or favor across the board.
    Again, founded on the “simple principles of nature” (and a whole lot of comparative analyses of historical precedent).

  66. Apparently the Roman Republic was based on the Bible too, even before it was written. So was the system of government in Athens, even earlier.
    Seriously – have a look at the pre-Imperial form of government in Rome. Compare it to the Bible. Now compare the current US system to the biblical Isaelite one. Now compare Republican Rome with the US.

  67. Well I don’t anyone argues the Bible played *no* role independent of the other sources. I think most serious scholars argue the Bible played a role along with a lot of other sources. Even Dr. Frazer’s “theistic rationalism” is a mean between traditional orthodox biblical Christianity and strict deism.
    Re the Adams’ quotations, they were taken 1813 when he was at his most heterodox. According to Adams, the Bible was the “best book” not because it was inerrant or infallible, but because it agreed with HIM and HIS PHILOSOPHY that was the result of reason.
    Likewise Adams’ general principles of Christianity united “Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants ‘qui ne croyent rien’ [Protestants who believe in nothing].” These principles were also, according to Adams, supported by Voltaire and Rousseau. On a personal note I have no problem with this kind of “Christianity.” Dr. Frazer terms it “theistic rationalism.” And I’m sure Mr. Fortenberry will give us some kind of clever explanation as to why this is all consistent with traditional biblical Christianity. Fire aware Bill.

  68. BF – “Most of the Bible was written long before the Roman Republic was formed.”
    And the Roman Republic adopted the arts, science and general/political philosophy of the preceding Greeks. And that tradition, including Solon and Athenian Democracy as well as the works of Plato, Aristotle, et al., precedes and/or coincides in time with the writing of most of the elements of the Tanakh and certainly before its canonization and certainly well before the canonization of scripture into what is now the Christian Bible.

  69. BF – “I have never claimed that the Constitution was transliterated from the Bible, nor have I ever claimed that the founders only considered the teachings of the Bible in their deliberations.”
    But the subject of the post is Barton and his “direct quote” mantra. You said he had a case. I asked for evidence to that end. You changed the subject to you and a different argument. Apparently you agree that he is mistaken on this point.
    As to Adam’s basic Christian principles, I believe that if you search the American Creation archives, Jon Rowe has unwound this one on more than one occasion. In short, and from my own reading of Adam’s and his correspondence to Jefferson, as well as giving consideration to Barton’s version, and input by Chris Rodda, Ed Brayton, and Rowe, it’s clear that Adam’s is referring to the general principles of morality and ethical behavior that can be found in the Bible but also in the wisdom of the philosophers and wise sages from classical antiquity forward. Even pagans and atheists comported with the general principles according to Adam’s. But that’s not surprising considering how much pagan philosophy was brought into Christianity starting roughly with Augustine. (Not to mention the echoes of Hellenistic philosophy and especially late Stoicism in Paul.)

  70. Zoe – I am reading a book now about the founders and the classics. One can easily make the case that the Greek and Roman writers and philosophers has direct influence on the form of government we have. Note that we have a Senate as the Romans did and we call our legislative building the Capitol (Capitolium), a decidedly unChristian designation.
    And yet, the chaplains held church services in the Capitol. Clearly, Christianity in its various forms influenced some of the founders; whereas for others the classical writers and philosophers were more influential. They found some principles that they could all agree about. And I should add that the early Baptists and dissenting churches were some of the biggest champions of separation of church and state – both ways. The Baptist Leland applauded the rationalist Jefferson because they agreed on the separation principle. I wish more Baptists today would embrace their heritage.

  71. Ken,
    Ecclesiastes 10:16 says: “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,” and Isaiah 3:4 is pronouncing that God will send judgement against Jerusalem by causing them to be ruled by children.

  72. Zoe,
    Most of the Bible was written long before the Roman Republic was formed.

  73. Apparently the Roman Republic was based on the Bible too, even before it was written. So was the system of government in Athens, even earlier.
    Seriously – have a look at the pre-Imperial form of government in Rome. Compare it to the Bible. Now compare the current US system to the biblical Isaelite one. Now compare Republican Rome with the US.

  74. Jim,
    I have never claimed that the Constitution was transliterated from the Bible, nor have I ever claimed that the founders only considered the teachings of the Bible in their deliberations. I agree with you that the founders consulted many other sources of information such as the Greek and Roman histories as well as the histories of dozens of other civilizations. Where I disagree with you is in your claim that they consulted these histories independently of the Bible. This claim is not supported by the writings of the founders. Consider the following example from John Adams as an example:
    “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.” [Adams, Charles Francis, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1856, pg 45]
    According to Adams, the general principles of Christianity can only be supported and never disproven even through the study of writings intentionally written in opposition to those principles. Thus, when we find Adams quoting from these sources, we cannot take those quotes as evidence that he consulted them independently of the Scriptures. Adams himself has assured us that he believed the principles of Christianity to be eternal and immutable. In fact, he later wrote:
    “I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my Straitened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have Seen: and Such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future Investigation.” [Adams, Charles Francis, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, vol. 10, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1856, pg 85]
    Obviously Adams did not consult the histories of other nations independently of his study of the Bible, but can we conclude that this practice was adopted by other founders? According to Adams, we can. In the preface to his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States, he wrote:
    “It can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg xv]
    As part of his defence of the American form of government, Adams made reference to many passages of Scripture and drew conclusions such as:
    “To expect self-denial from men, when they have a majority in their favour, and consequently power to gratify themselves, is to disbelieve all history and universal experience; it is to disbelieve Revelation and the Word of God, which informs us, the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 289]
    And:
    “In the institution of government it must be remembered, that although reason ought always to govern individuals, it certainly never did since the Fall, and never will till the Millennium; and human nature must be taken as it is, as it has been, and will be.” [Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol. 3, John Stockdale, London, 1794, pg 363]
    These and many other statements from Adams reveal that he recognized a biblical foundation upon which the American legal system was built. But we need not focus only on Adams. We could turn to a number of other founders and find similar statements. James Madison, for example, wrote that:
    “The belief in a God, all powerful, wise, and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world, and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources, nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it.” [Madison, James, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 3, J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1865, pg 503-504]
    And a few days later he also wrote:
    “I concur with you at once in rejecting the idea maintained by some divines, of more zeal than discretion, that there is no road from nature up to nature’s God, and that all the knowledge of his existence and attributes which preceded the written revelation of them was derived from oral tradition. The doctrine is the more extraordinary, as it so directly contradicts the declarations you have cited from the written authority itself.” [Madison, James, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, vol. 3, J. B. Lippincott &Co., 1865, pg 505]
    These statements reveal to us that Madison, like John Adams, understood that studying multiple sources of information would only serve to strengthen the validity of the teachings found in the Bible.
    One of the clearest examples of Madison’s recognition of the Christian principles undergirding our government can be seen in his statement regarding religious freedom. There we find him writing:
    “The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious sects a legal equality. If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed … Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Ceasar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put assunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.” [Alley, Robert S., James Madison on Religious Liberty, Prometheus Books, New York, 1985, pg 89-90]
    It is clear from this statement that Madison, like the Baptists who influenced him, based his concept of religious freedom on the teachings of the Bible. This sentiment is repeated in his Memorial and Remonstrance where we read:
    “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe, the religion which we believe to be of Divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man.” [Madison, James, A Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man, S. C. Ustick, Washington, 1828, pg 5-6]
    And later in that same Remonstrance, he argued that a particular bill should be voted down because:
    “The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.”
    Once again, we find an example of one of our founders basing his position in regards to proper government on the teachings of the Bible rather than on a mere examination of history. We could go on. I have already mentioned Benjamin Franklin’s statement regarding the scriptural requirements for rulers, but let me provide a little more detail of the context of that statement.
    Addording to Madison’s records of the Constitutional Convention, Mr. Pinckney proposed that there be a minimum property requirement for elected officials. Madison recorded Dr. Franklin rising up in strong opposition to this idea. He wrote:
    “Doctor Franklin expressed his dislike to everything that tended to debase the spirit of the common people. If honesty was often the companion of wealth, and if poverty was exposed to peculiar temptation, it was not less true that the possession of property increased the desire of more property. Some of the greatest rogues he was ever acquainted with were the richest rogues. We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers, that they should be men hating covetousness. [This statement actually is a direct quote from Exodus 18:21] This Constitution will be much read and attended to in Europe; and if it should betray a great partiality to the rich, will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage the common people from removing to this country.”
    After Franklin was finished, Madison tells us that “The motion of Mr. Pinckney was rejected by so general a no, that the States were not called.” Dr. Franklin specifically chose to rely on a reference to Scripture to prove his point, and when he did so, he very effectively ended the debate on that subject.
    We could go on again and consider the claim of Gouverneur Morris that:
    “This hour of distress will come. It comes to all, and the moment of affliction is known to Him alone, whose divine providence exalts or depresses states and kingdoms. Not by the blind dictates of arbitrary will. Not by a tyrannous and despotic mandate. But in proportion to their obedience or disobedience of his just and holy laws. It is he who commands us that we abstain from wrong. It is he who tells us, ‘do unto others as ye would that they should do unto you.'” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 465]
    Clearly, this founder understood that the fate of our nation was dependent upon our obedience to the “just and holy laws” of God. And this was not an isolated sentiment of Mr. Morris. He expressed it often in his writings stating at one time that:
    “It is justice, says the book of wisdom, which establisheth a nation. A view of Europe would naturally lead a pietist to apprehend, that the Almighty had prepared a scourge for the abominations, which prevailed among the people.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 236]
    And in another place:
    “You may perhaps take a wider range, and ask whether this principle would not operate injuriously, by depriving the government of pecuniary resource, when engaged hereafter in a war not only just but unavoidable. to this I reply, in the language of Holy Writ, ‘thou shalt not do evil that good only just may come of it.’” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 286-288]
    And yet again we find him writing:
    “I do, not, my dear Sir, look westward for the sunrise of freedom. My eyes are turned to, and steadily fixed on the east. My trust is not in a President, Senate, and house of Representatives, but in Him who governs empires, the world, the universe.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 302]
    The veneration which Mr. Morris had for the Christian religion can be seen in his comments on the failures of other governments such as this statement about Frederick the Great:
    “Frederick the Great was, in one respect, a very little and shortsighted politician. His vanity led him to sacrifice the power and safety of his successors to purchase the incense of a few wits, who had undertaken to destroy the Christian religion; and here that has happened which is written; ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, which have set the children’s teeth on edge.’ The destruction of religion has loosened the bonds of duty, and those of allegiance must ever be weak, where there is a defect both of piety and morality.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 3, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 214]
    And in reference to the French Revolution, he wrote:
    “Lastly, it is a duty to God. It is to his high Tribunal, that the monarchs of the earth must render a solemn account of their conduct; and he requires of them, that it be regulated by the principles of truth and justice, which alone endure forever, and which forever establish the peace and prosperity of empires.” [Sparks, Jared, The Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 2, Gray & Bowen, Boston 1832, pg 523]
    I could go on and on and on. Time does not permit me to delve into Hamilton’s statements regarding Christianity and the French Revolution. I will simply point out that his view was identical to that which we have just read from Morris. And I will have to wait until a later time to give even a brief overview of James Wilson’s statements regarding the Christian foundations of our nation. I will merely content myself for now with conveying his emphatic statement that “Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.” And of course, I cannot mention that statement without also pointing out his claim that: “Christianity is part of the common law.” This meager posting will have to suffice for now, but let me assure you that there is much, much more that could be presented.

  75. And, apparently too rushed/lazy to add or subtract commas.
    Oh well, at least it’s happy hour.

  76. TVD, I should say that I have been too rushed/lazy today to type out the long form of my nom de blog* – jimmiraybob. So I think you know where I stand.
    *or check spelling grammar** etc. – apologies all around.
    **whew, almost spelled grammer wrong.

  77. Just as similarities in Christianity/Christian philosophy and theology to earlier pagan philosophy (platonic, Stoic or Aristotelian) does not make Christianity pagan. Or does it?
    It’s called Scholasticism, where Aquinas [c. 1250] reconciles reason [particularly Aristotle] and revelation [the Bible]. Truth cannot contradict truth. “General revelation” is that which man can deduce with his [God-given] reason, “special revelation” is the scriptures. As the great American Founder James Wilson, who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, put it:
    “The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other.”
    —Lectures on Law, 1804

    And some of the wisdom of the Stoics, particularly natural law, was quite compatible with Christianity all along, influencing [St.} Augustine of Hippo [c. 400 CE] among many others. And of course there’s
    http://everythingistheological.com/2009/10/03/paul-and-hellenistic-philosophy/
    It’s all quite interesting, actually.
    ______________
    As for the discussion of the Bible’s influence on our structure of government, I think illustrating some steps in between the Bible and the Founding would be necessary to bring the argument home. If any, I think the influences are more from “Christian thought” than directly from its scripture.
    “To take any man’s money, without his consent, is unjust and contrary to reason and the law of God, and the Gospel of Christ; it is contrary to Magna Charta, or the Great Charter and Constitution of England; and to complain, and even to resist such a lawless power, is just, and reasonable, and no rebellion.”
    -Francis Alison, James Sproat, George Duffield, Robert Davidson, “An Address to the Ministers and Presbyterian Congregations in North Carolina.” July 10, 1775.

  78. So I looked at your “Conclustions” pdf and it doesn’t make any sense. In your 1st case your biblical citations say the opposite of what is in the constitution.

    1. Article 1, Section 2 – “No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years.” The age limits which the constitution places upon those wishing to obtain government positions is founded upon the wisdom expressed in Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 in which great woe is pronounced against a nation that is ruled by children.

    The ecclesiastes passage is talking about how a king (ruler) must be from the nobility, which is contrary to the entire notion of the constitution. And isaiah says “I will make mere youths their officials; children will rule over them.” which is the opposite of requiring a MINIMUM age to be eligible for a leadership position.
    As Warren said earlier, it seems you are just seeing what you want to see here.

  79. The connection between the US Constitution and the Bible is minimal. Re the “49 parallels” you can throw spaghetti against the wall and find such parallels between any two references.
    What we need are direct connections and they are miminal. Mr. Fortenberry does a good job at looking for needles in haystacks and may have found a few that eluded Dr. Frazer.
    A lot of the patriotic ministers (the most notable of whom were rationalistic and unitarian) did quote the Bible in conjunction with the natural law reasoning to justify revolution. They came up with interesting, novel, unorthodox interpretations teaching why Romans 13 ought not stand in the way of revolution to tyrannical government. (Samuel West concluded St. Paul may have been joking.)
    But when it came time to writing the Constitution, the biblical citations played a very minimal role. Even the study much toted by Christian Nationlists by Donald S. Lutz et al. demonstrates this.

  80. And, apparently too rushed/lazy to add or subtract commas.
    Oh well, at least it’s happy hour.

  81. TVD, I should say that I have been too rushed/lazy today to type out the long form of my nom de blog* – jimmiraybob. So I think you know where I stand.
    *or check spelling grammar** etc. – apologies all around.
    **whew, almost spelled grammer wrong.

  82. BF-““As for your request for a quotation, did you know that Benjamin Franklin stated in the Cnstitutional Convention that “We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers”?”
    That is fine. And I agree with the sentiment. It’s a line I would use if the conventioneers were being asses. But that’s not what I asked for and it proves nothing other than the fact that there are useful sentiments in the Bible and that I thought it would hold sway with some of the asses. He might just as well and easily have pointed to Cicero or Aristotle, as did Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, et al., explicitly point to for the same sentiment.
    And for all we know he was rolling his eyes when he said it. BF was not above sarcasm or snide commentary. I’m not saying he was, just that we don’t know.

  83. BF – “ If so, then I think that my argument stands.
    If the choice were the Bible the Constitution and no other possible sources then possibly. But, that is simply not the case. Again, there is a copious founding literature left by those shaping the constitution that their sources were vast and included classical Greek and Roman sources and examination of the historical record independent of the Bible or strictly Jewish or Christian sources.
    I’ll ask again, do you have possession of, or a citation to, a single founding document written by any of the intellectual leaders behind the written Constitution stating in unambiguous language that it is based upon or transliterated from the Bible? A yes requires evidence. Are there any contemporaneous voices of the framers or ratifiers that state that the Constitution is based on or transliterated from the Old Testament of the Bible? Who was standing up at the time saying that “we have created a Biblical Jewish nation.”?

  84. Bill- are you willing to concede that even in the most generous of interpretations of what our laws were based on, they are not, in fact, direct quotes from the Bible?

  85. Did you intend to say that there is not a single historical document other than the Bible which makes that statement? If so, then I think that my argument stands.
    As for your request for a quotation, did you know that Benjamin Franklin stated in the Cnstitutional Convention that “We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers”?

  86. Just as similarities in Christianity/Christian philosophy and theology to earlier pagan philosophy (platonic, Stoic or Aristotelian) does not make Christianity pagan. Or does it?
    It’s called Scholasticism, where Aquinas [c. 1250] reconciles reason [particularly Aristotle] and revelation [the Bible]. Truth cannot contradict truth. “General revelation” is that which man can deduce with his [God-given] reason, “special revelation” is the scriptures. As the great American Founder James Wilson, who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, put it:
    “The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other.”
    —Lectures on Law, 1804

    And some of the wisdom of the Stoics, particularly natural law, was quite compatible with Christianity all along, influencing [St.} Augustine of Hippo [c. 400 CE] among many others. And of course there’s
    http://everythingistheological.com/2009/10/03/paul-and-hellenistic-philosophy/
    It’s all quite interesting, actually.
    ______________
    As for the discussion of the Bible’s influence on our structure of government, I think illustrating some steps in between the Bible and the Founding would be necessary to bring the argument home. If any, I think the influences are more from “Christian thought” than directly from its scripture.
    “To take any man’s money, without his consent, is unjust and contrary to reason and the law of God, and the Gospel of Christ; it is contrary to Magna Charta, or the Great Charter and Constitution of England; and to complain, and even to resist such a lawless power, is just, and reasonable, and no rebellion.”
    -Francis Alison, James Sproat, George Duffield, Robert Davidson, “An Address to the Ministers and Presbyterian Congregations in North Carolina.” July 10, 1775.

  87. “Our government is very similar [to] …
    Similarities in the latter do not necessitate that the latter be based on the former. Similarities in political philosophy during the American founding to Aristotelian philosophy does not necessitate that the Constitution and the government are based on Aristotle or strictly Aristotelian concepts. Just as similarities in Christianity/Christian philosophy and theology to earlier pagan philosophy (platonic, Stoic or Aristotelian) does not make Christianity pagan. Or does it?

  88. BF – “Would you mind pointing out what historical document you think that the founders might have consulted in order to conclude that the President should be a natural born citizen?”
    Bill, there is no single document that I’m aware of that specifically says that a citizen should be the president. But crimminy on a cracker, these guys, the founders, were steeped in history – from the ancient Greeks, classical Romans and the Europe that hey left behind. Yes, they were also well educated in the Bible too. Much of that history, not to mention facts of their time, involved foreign rulers imposing their reign with particularly disastrous results in foreign lands upon foreign peoples which was inimical to the ideal of liberty as they understood it.
    Do you have possession or or a citation to a single founding document by any of the intellectual leaders behind the Constitution stating in unambiguous language that it is based upon or transliterated from the Bible?

  89. So I looked at your “Conclustions” pdf and it doesn’t make any sense. In your 1st case your biblical citations say the opposite of what is in the constitution.

    1. Article 1, Section 2 – “No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years.” The age limits which the constitution places upon those wishing to obtain government positions is founded upon the wisdom expressed in Ecclesiastes 10:16 and Isaiah 3:4 in which great woe is pronounced against a nation that is ruled by children.

    The ecclesiastes passage is talking about how a king (ruler) must be from the nobility, which is contrary to the entire notion of the constitution. And isaiah says “I will make mere youths their officials; children will rule over them.” which is the opposite of requiring a MINIMUM age to be eligible for a leadership position.
    As Warren said earlier, it seems you are just seeing what you want to see here.

  90. You are quite mistaken. Our government is very similar the that of ancient Israel even in the realm of poplar sovereignty and the absence of a religious test as I pointed out in th previously linked conclusion to my book.

  91. Bill – that should probably be a clue to you that the influences on the American constitution were decidedly British which Jefferson believed was not based on Christianity. While the Constitution came later, it is clearly not true that the patriots didn’t discuss proper governmental forms. They all came from states with governments.
    The fact is that some founders wanted a more explicitly Christian government and some did not. In the end, we have a very un-Israel like Constitution which places sovereignty in the hands of the people (instead of God or the church) and forbids a religious test for inclusion.

  92. Warren,
    Jefferson was proposing seal for an American government that was decidedly British in form because they had not at that point conducted any deliberations on the decision of what kind of government to establish for themselves.

  93. Jim,
    Would you mind pointing out what historical document you think that the founders might have consulted in order to conclude that the President should be a natural born citizen?

  94. Boo,
    Deuteronomy 17:15 clearly indicates that it was the people who were to set the king up over themselves. In doing so, they were instructed to heed the choice of God and to only choose a natural born citizen, but it was clearly left up to the people to set up the king over themselves. This is supported by the explanation in I Samuel 8 that it was not God’s intent for the Israelites to have a king at all, but He condescended to allow the people to choose their own rulers. This was God’s practice with them even from the time of Moses’ leadership in the wilderness.
    To address Warren’s addendum to you statement, let me point out that many of the instances in which God sent a prophet to proclaim who would be king were performed privately for the benefit of that individual alone and not enforce His will upon the people.

  95. BF-““As for your request for a quotation, did you know that Benjamin Franklin stated in the Cnstitutional Convention that “We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers”?”
    That is fine. And I agree with the sentiment. It’s a line I would use if the conventioneers were being asses. But that’s not what I asked for and it proves nothing other than the fact that there are useful sentiments in the Bible and that I thought it would hold sway with some of the asses. He might just as well and easily have pointed to Cicero or Aristotle, as did Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, et al., explicitly point to for the same sentiment.
    And for all we know he was rolling his eyes when he said it. BF was not above sarcasm or snide commentary. I’m not saying he was, just that we don’t know.

  96. BF – “ If so, then I think that my argument stands.
    If the choice were the Bible the Constitution and no other possible sources then possibly. But, that is simply not the case. Again, there is a copious founding literature left by those shaping the constitution that their sources were vast and included classical Greek and Roman sources and examination of the historical record independent of the Bible or strictly Jewish or Christian sources.
    I’ll ask again, do you have possession of, or a citation to, a single founding document written by any of the intellectual leaders behind the written Constitution stating in unambiguous language that it is based upon or transliterated from the Bible? A yes requires evidence. Are there any contemporaneous voices of the framers or ratifiers that state that the Constitution is based on or transliterated from the Old Testament of the Bible? Who was standing up at the time saying that “we have created a Biblical Jewish nation.”?

  97. Bill Fortenberry – “….but it was certainly not mere common sense during the time of our nation’s founding.
    Thank you for providing the correct answer to why the founders would have included the citizen requirement. It wasn’t Biblical it was, principally, based on historical observation.

  98. Bll- Deuteronomy 17:15 references a king chosen by God. That is not in the Constitution, no mater how much some people might wish it were. Teasing out little bit and pieces here and there and trying to find a parallel the way Barton is doing puts me in mind of horoscope reading.

    1. Boo – Exactly. God does not communicate with a prophet to inform the people whom He chooses. Some religious leaders think God does this (Peter Waldron thought Michelle Bachmann was chosen) but no one speaks for God in this government. Indeed, there is no requirement to believe in God to be a leader in the American system.

  99. You are overlooking several things about that statement, Warren. First, it is not entirely clear whether the reference to political principles and form of government was made by Adams or by Jefferson, but of course, this is of minor importance since both men were instrumental in the founding of our nation. Second, this statement is from a letter dated August 14, 1776. Therefore, it cannot be a reference to the American form of Government but rather to the British government which does, in fact, trace its origin back to the Saxons.

  100. Bill- are you willing to concede that even in the most generous of interpretations of what our laws were based on, they are not, in fact, direct quotes from the Bible?

  101. Did you intend to say that there is not a single historical document other than the Bible which makes that statement? If so, then I think that my argument stands.
    As for your request for a quotation, did you know that Benjamin Franklin stated in the Cnstitutional Convention that “We should remember the character which the Scripture requires in rulers”?

  102. “Our government is very similar [to] …
    Similarities in the latter do not necessitate that the latter be based on the former. Similarities in political philosophy during the American founding to Aristotelian philosophy does not necessitate that the Constitution and the government are based on Aristotle or strictly Aristotelian concepts. Just as similarities in Christianity/Christian philosophy and theology to earlier pagan philosophy (platonic, Stoic or Aristotelian) does not make Christianity pagan. Or does it?

  103. That is certainly a possibility, Ken. After all, I would maintain that God established the principle of requiring rulers to be natural born citizens precisely because that requirement is more beneficial in the long run than the practice of electing non-citizens, and I do not doubt that it is possible for men to come to the same conclusion through a proper examination of history especially at this point after witnessing the success of that practice in America. However, the example of George I demonstrates that this is not a necessary nor even a commonsensical conclusion. Most historians agree that George was a much better choice than the natural born James that the Jacobites attempted to place on the throne, and we could discuss dozens of other examples of foreign born rulers who excelled their natural born counterparts. Perhaps you could point out some other legal code which contained a similar clause, and we could discuss which one was more likely to have influenced the founders.

  104. BF – “Would you mind pointing out what historical document you think that the founders might have consulted in order to conclude that the President should be a natural born citizen?”
    Bill, there is no single document that I’m aware of that specifically says that a citizen should be the president. But crimminy on a cracker, these guys, the founders, were steeped in history – from the ancient Greeks, classical Romans and the Europe that hey left behind. Yes, they were also well educated in the Bible too. Much of that history, not to mention facts of their time, involved foreign rulers imposing their reign with particularly disastrous results in foreign lands upon foreign peoples which was inimical to the ideal of liberty as they understood it.
    Do you have possession or or a citation to a single founding document by any of the intellectual leaders behind the Constitution stating in unambiguous language that it is based upon or transliterated from the Bible?

  105. You are quite mistaken. Our government is very similar the that of ancient Israel even in the realm of poplar sovereignty and the absence of a religious test as I pointed out in th previously linked conclusion to my book.

  106. Bill Fortenberry says:
    March 28, 2013 at 1:03 am
    “There have been many rulers who were not only citizens of nations other than the ones that they ruled but also not citizens of the nation that they ruled until the moment that they claimed the throne.”
    And the founding fathers were aware of the problems non-citizen rulers caused and realized it wasn’t a good idea. No bible needed to determine that.

  107. Bill – that should probably be a clue to you that the influences on the American constitution were decidedly British which Jefferson believed was not based on Christianity. While the Constitution came later, it is clearly not true that the patriots didn’t discuss proper governmental forms. They all came from states with governments.
    The fact is that some founders wanted a more explicitly Christian government and some did not. In the end, we have a very un-Israel like Constitution which places sovereignty in the hands of the people (instead of God or the church) and forbids a religious test for inclusion.

  108. Warren,
    Jefferson was proposing seal for an American government that was decidedly British in form because they had not at that point conducted any deliberations on the decision of what kind of government to establish for themselves.

  109. Boo,
    Deuteronomy 17:15 clearly indicates that it was the people who were to set the king up over themselves. In doing so, they were instructed to heed the choice of God and to only choose a natural born citizen, but it was clearly left up to the people to set up the king over themselves. This is supported by the explanation in I Samuel 8 that it was not God’s intent for the Israelites to have a king at all, but He condescended to allow the people to choose their own rulers. This was God’s practice with them even from the time of Moses’ leadership in the wilderness.
    To address Warren’s addendum to you statement, let me point out that many of the instances in which God sent a prophet to proclaim who would be king were performed privately for the benefit of that individual alone and not enforce His will upon the people.

  110. Bill Fortenberry – “….but it was certainly not mere common sense during the time of our nation’s founding.
    Thank you for providing the correct answer to why the founders would have included the citizen requirement. It wasn’t Biblical it was, principally, based on historical observation.

  111. Bll- Deuteronomy 17:15 references a king chosen by God. That is not in the Constitution, no mater how much some people might wish it were. Teasing out little bit and pieces here and there and trying to find a parallel the way Barton is doing puts me in mind of horoscope reading.

    1. Boo – Exactly. God does not communicate with a prophet to inform the people whom He chooses. Some religious leaders think God does this (Peter Waldron thought Michelle Bachmann was chosen) but no one speaks for God in this government. Indeed, there is no requirement to believe in God to be a leader in the American system.

  112. Warren,
    The men listed in Numbers 1:1-16 are described as the princes of Israel, and they are mentioned several times throughout the Bible as having rulership over the tribes. Numbers 7:2, for example, describes them as being “over them that were numbered.” I Chronicles 27:16-22 again lists them as rulers, and in Ezekiel 45:8 and following, the princes are given specific instructions for ruling. Many more examples could be listed, but let me move on to your next point.
    You said that I would need statements from the framers that these passages were influential on them. Let me provide one such statement in regards to the senate being predicated upon the government of ancient Israel. John Adams, in his Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, wrote: ““This at the least is certain, that the government of the Hebrews instituted by God, had a judge, the great Sanhedrim, and general assemblies of the people.”(1) Now, Adams, in referring to the Sanhedrin, makes reference to a different set of individuals than the princes of Israel which I referenced. He was referring to the appointment of the seventy in Numbers 11:16-17, and I am willing to concede that the Senate may have been based on this model of the Sanhedrin rather than on that of the princes. Nevertheless, this statement by Adams demonstrates that he recognized the republican nature of the government established by the Pentateuch.
    In regards to the election of the kings, this can be supported by many additional passages such as I Samuel 11:15 and II Chronicles 23, but one of the best evidences of this can be found in the rejection of Rehoboam as king in I Kings 12. When the ten northern tribes say that Rehoboam would not listen to their elders, they responded by asking: “What portion have we in David?” They then rejected Rehoboam and elected their own king instead. Here we see that, in spite of the fact that God chose whom He wanted to be king, yet He still allowed the people the autonomy of deciding for themselves whether or not they would accept His choice. This explains why David did not become king on the day that he was chosen for that role by God but rather many years later when he was elected to that position by the elders. This is also consistent with the record in II Samuel 2:4 that David was originally made just king over the tribe of Judah, and he did not become the king of Israel until the other elders chose to make him so.
    (1) Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, vol 1, Philadelphia, 1797, pg 149]

    1. Bill – What you are missing is the rest of what Adams said. He said pagans Hengist and Horsa were foundations of the new government. Writing his wife about the process of choosing a national seal, Adams wrote

      Mr. Jefferson proposed. The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.

      Adams, as a politician, recognized that a biblical illustration might help with his defense but this does not mean that Madison and the others went to the Bible for their ideas about what to put in the Constitution. Adams was not opposed to the general principles of Christianity and said that the revolution was based on them and the general principles of English liberty. Adams stance is far from the picture you are painting – of a group of men who wanted to implement a biblical government.

  113. Ken,
    The idea that leaders should not be citizens of other nations may be common sense to you with the advantage of more than 225 years of that rule being in place in America, but it was certainly not mere common sense during the time of our nation’s founding. There have been many rulers who were not only citizens of nations other than the ones that they ruled but also not citizens of the nation that they ruled until the moment that they claimed the throne. George I of England is a perfect example. He was a citizen of Hanover until he was chosen to be king of England in 1714 at the age of 54 without even the ability to communicate in the language of the people that he had been chosen to rule.
    http://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=george1

  114. Why would you need to trot out historians to check Barton’s claims about Bible quotes in the Constitution? Any literate adult is able to debunk that lie.

  115. Bill Fortenberry
    March 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    You and Barton are both stretching things quite a bit to claim the constitution is based on the bible. The fact that some ideas occur in both does not mean they based it on the bible. A good idea is a good idea, which is why you can find them in more than one place. For example, not having your leaders be citizens of other nations is just common sense. Nothing “biblical” about it. I’m pretty sure you had to be a citizen in ancient rome or greece to hold political office there as well.

  116. Mr. Anderson doesn’t provide any details on Barton’s claims that the Constitution contains direct quotes from the Bible, but I found another article which quotes him as previously saying:
    “You look at Article 3, Section 1, the treason clause,” he told James Robison on Trinity Broadcast Network. “Direct quote out of the Bible. You look at Article 2, the quote on the president has to be a native born? That is Deuteronomy 17:15, verbatim. I mean, it drives the secularists nuts because the Bible’s all over it! Now we as Christians don’t tend to recognize that. We think it’s a secular document; we’ve bought into their lies. It’s not.”
    [Source: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/david-barton-christianizing-history ]
    If these are the same “quotations” that Barton was referring to at the Kansas prayer breakfast, then I have to say that his claim is fairly accurate. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say that these sections are “direct” quotations, but it is certainly accurate to claim that they are nearly identical to the biblical model. In my research, I have discovered 49 clauses in the Constitution which have direct parallels in the Scriptures. I list all 49 of them in the conclusion of my book Hidden Facts of the Founding Era which can be read online at: http://christian76.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Conclusion.pdf

    1. Bill – I read your list at the link you provided and to me your reasoning is not convincing.
      For example you say that Numbers 1:1-16 was the inspiration for the Senate. The passage reads:

      1 The LORD spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said: 2 “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one. 3 You and Aaron are to number by their divisions all the men in Israel twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army. 4 One man from each tribe, each the head of his family, is to help you. 5 These are the names of the men who are to assist you: from Reuben, Elizur son of Shedeur; 6 from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai; 7 from Judah, Nahshon son of Amminadab; 8 from Issachar, Nethanel son of Zuar; 9 from Zebulun, Eliab son of Helon; 10 from the sons of Joseph: from Ephraim, Elishama son of Ammihud; from Manasseh, Gamaliel son of Pedahzur; 11 from Benjamin, Abidan son of Gideoni; 12 from Dan, Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai; 13 from Asher, Pagiel son of Ocran; 14 from Gad, Eliasaph son of Deuel; 15 from Naphtali, Ahira son of Enan.” 16 These were the men appointed from the community, the leaders of their ancestral tribes. They were the heads of the clans of Israel.

      These men helped with the census and they were appointed by God. You have to want to find what you think is there. You would also need statements from the framers that these passages were influential on them.
      One more example, you say the Kings of Israel were chosen by the elders of Israel. You are changing the clear teaching of the Old Testament here to fit in with your views. You list 2 Samuel 5:3 where the elders anointed David. However, David was clearly chosen by God (I Samuel 16) long before the elders performed this ceremony of affirmation. There was no election, except by God. Lincoln described our system as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That is not at all what Israel was.

  117. Thank goodness for balance. But I see the Kansas Governor’s Prayer Breakfast featuring Barton continued in spite of my protest email, hahaha. (Just kidding . . . sort of.)

Comments are closed.