David Barton Misleads Ben Shapiro on the Jefferson Bible

David Barton spent an hour or so with Ben Shapiro on The Daily Wire recently and one of the topics was The Jefferson Bible. As Barton likes to say dramatically, Jefferson edited the gospels twice in his life. One of those versions we have today which is often called the Jefferson Bible. However, as Jefferson made clear in his correspondence, the two efforts were part of lifelong process to find what Jefferson considered to be the true teachings of Jesus. He made two efforts, one hastily done in the White House, and one more carefully later in life.

In any case, at 32:28 below Barton starts his narrative about The Jefferson Bible. Watch:

Barton told Shapiro nearly the same false story he told Eric Metaxas when he appeared on Metaxas’ show in 2016. I did a debunking of that story then with links to additional debunkings. You should go check it out.

Did Jefferson’s 1804 Version Include Just The Red Letters?

Let’s just take one claim. Barton told Shapiro that in his 1804 version of The Jefferson Bible, Jefferson cut out all of the words of Jesus — “the red letters” and included them in the compilation. This is false. First, we can’t be 100% sure what was in the final bound version because no copy has survived to this day. Only the version done sometime after 1820 has survived. When Barton asks people if they have ever read either version, he knows they can’t have read the 1804 effort because a copy doesn’t exist.

The reason we have some confidence about what was in it is because Jefferson’s outline for what he wanted to include has survived as have the Bibles he used to cut out those verses from the Gospels. Thus, Jefferson’s extracted Gospel can be reconstructed. The most rigorous reconstruction has been done by Dickinson Adams and published in Jefferson’s Extracts from the GospelsBarton is aware of this work and knows about Jefferson’s tables. He knows that Jefferson did not intend to include the red letters of John 3:16, John 14:6 or the resurrection of Christ. There is no feeding of the 5,000. Jesus doesn’t walk on water in Jefferson’s version. His red lettered exhortation to “Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid” is not to be found in Jefferson’s extraction. Jefferson’s 1804 version ends with John 19:30:

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished.’ and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

There is no resurrection or Great Commission in either of Jefferson’s extractions.

I covered Barton’s claims about The Jefferson Bible in my book with Michael Coulter, Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims About Our Third President and included the tables Jefferson constructed to guide his extractions. I have included links to the three images here. If a verse is listed, Jefferson intended to extract it for use in his version of the Gospels.

Page One, Page Two, Page Three

As anyone can see, these passages leave out almost all of the miracles of Jesus and many of His words. Barton is simply wrong to say that Jefferson took all of “the red letters” and compiled them in a volume. In several letters to friends, Jefferson described his project and said he could discern the actual teachings of Jesus from those added by his followers. He said picking the actual words and teaching was as simple as “plucking diamonds from a dunghill.” This he said to John Adams in 1813 about that 1804 version:

I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the 1st. century.

I have covered the other claims elsewhere but I hope this is enough to show that Barton is making things up in direct contrast to the evidence. He has been doing this since at least 2011.

In addition, the claim that Jefferson was inspired by a sermon to give this compilation to Indians is false as well. The sermon says nothing about giving just the words of Jesus to native people. Even one of Barton’s own collaborators, Mark Belilies, admitted that to me. Nonetheless, Barton continues telling the same stories.

 

24 thoughts on “David Barton Misleads Ben Shapiro on the Jefferson Bible”

  1. I ran across your article today as I am doing some personal research on the Jefferson Bible. It sounds as if you are not disagreeing with his claims that Jefferson did not “remove” portions of the Bible because he didn’t want them in the Bible. This however seems to be the general consensus, that Jefferson wanted to remove the miraculous and supernatural, and that is why we are left with the Swiss cheese “Jefferson Bible” with all these passages cut out of it. That is the larger point here in my opinion, was Jefferson removing passages or compiling passages?

  2. This disproves nothing. In fact, many of those verses were supernatural! Bigots will be bigots. You even said “he cut out almost all of the miracles of Jesus and many of His words” – makes you sound like a fool.

  3. he is not lying or making things up, he is “expanding his platform.” After all, he has to buy groceries like the rest of us, so if a little twisting is done to sell books, goodness don’t judge. We wouldn’t want him homeless, right?

  4. Thank you Dr. Throckmorton for documenting David Barton’s continuing legacy of blatant lies.

    Barton and his followers are so far removed from actual historians (real historians with real degrees in history who produce peer-reviewed archival and historical scholarship), that they don’t seem to grasp the simple fact that the Jefferson Bible is common knowledge among educated audiences, and anyone with a Wikipedia-level understanding will know Barton is simply lying.

    1. To be fair, you can own a tank in the USA as long as the sheriff gives permission. You can also own artillery, though each shell has to be registered, and it’s expensive.

      I have no ethical problem with people being able to defend themselves. People are generally responsible and should not be prohibited from protecting their families.

      I live 4 blocks from the police station in the very center of downtown of my Southern city and the newspaper man was murdered on my doorstep for his wallet. From the time I was woken by the gunshots to the time the police arrived was 20 minutes. There are actually a few ranches on the southern border where owning a tank isn’t the worst idea.

  5. not sure how Barton and Shapiro came to do interviews, but at every opportunity I am encouraging Shapiro and his followers to look at Barton very skeptically.

    i was actually saddened to see Shapiro have Barton on his shows.

  6. If Barton stopped Lying For Jesus, I’d faint from the shock.

    1. Even more, T. Jefferson would roll over in his grave in shock and relief. I find it doubtful that Jefferson would in any way want the phony Dr. David Barton to be in charge of his take on religion.

      1. Jefferson hated all religion as far as I can tell. I’ve come to agree with him.

        1. Actually, he didn’t. He believed he could discern the correct teaching of Jesus and followed that. He was also a big fan of Joseph Priestley, a Unitarian minister. He did dislike Calvinism and Catholicism and much trinitarian Christianity. However, he did believe in an afterlife and Christian virtues.

          1. Perhaps I ought to have said that he hated all the parts of religion that I hate. When you despise clericalism and rigid thought systems that control the minds of men, to my eye you’ve become decidedly non-religious regardless of your spiritual beliefs. But of course, having spiritual beliefs fits the main definition of “religious”.

          2. One of my main issues with Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity is the manipulation and control associated with it. This includes mind control, social control, even emotional control. To be sure, I know Christians who do not participate in this, but every church to which I have belonged did. It is also quite evident among some commenters here. The oppressive nature of this is very much like that of cults. I would go as far as to say that many congregations are de facto cults.

            When one is forced to say the sky isn’t blue or the grass isn’t green, despite what is in front of one’s face, a core piece of one’s humanity is lost. Then one is told who one can have as a friend, or who one can love, how one can spend one’s money, what one can do for entertainment, etc. Of course, all this will be said to be sourced from scripture, but that is just an easy excuse for way too many bad things.

            I have more respect for the Anglican model that puts reason on equal par with scripture and tradition. I find it much less robotic, and less prone to the kind of maniacal actions that some commit while “following god’s word.” Everything in scripture should be passed through the filter of one’s own humanity before taking it to heart. I can’t imagine God expecting anything less. (Isaiah 1:18)

            On a related note, I would love to see a serious study of the phenomenon the evangelical church calls “getting saved.” This moment of “surrender” seems similar to that point at which a victim of torture breaks, giving up his will to another. I can’t imagine that is what Jesus really had in mind. Again, it seems far too similar to the mental manipulation of a cult.

            Now infuse this kind of control with a strong link to a particular political ideology or party, and you have real danger.

          3. I couldn’t agree more with all of this. I would be tickled pink if Doc did some reporting on thought control methods in churches and the salvation phenomenon you mentioned.

          4. I couldn’t agree more with all of this. I would be tickled pink if Doc did some reporting on thought control methods in churches and the salvation phenomenon you mentioned.

          5. I would as well. The details of that would no doubt be enlightening, if perhaps scary. The most immediate problem I see is that the church, and further the particular congregation, is the tangible incarnation of the one being surrendered to in the here and now. This puts them in the role of the one whose will is supplanting that of the individual (all lofty language aside).

            People who are involved in this for any length of time tend to acclimate to the entire concept but for the objective observer, or one who has “deprogrammed,” it can be a terribly disturbing idea. Of course, that will be taken as a sign of rebellion against God, etc. It’s all very human in it’s deviousness, and very much about control.

            I would also be interested in knowing just when the mainline churches went off in this particular direction. For most of the Church’s history this was not a thing (the salvation by “being born again,” control seems always to have been a factor).

          6. The contrast between the charismatic and non-charismatic churches would be intriguing as well, given the rather more dramatic displays expected of the converted in the former.

          7. I’ve had some experience in this area, to my great regret. Charismatic churches would be high on my “cult” list. The “speaking in tongues” phenomenon could be a study all it’s own, and actually has been I believe. The pressure put on believers to perform in this way is unbelievable (and highly detrimental). Also, the emphasis on emotion is highly manipulative, particularly in the music portion of the service.

          8. I’ve had some experience in this area, to my great regret. Charismatic churches would be high on my “cult” list. The “speaking in tongues” phenomenon could be a study all it’s own, and actually has been I believe. The pressure put on believers to perform in this way is unbelievable (and highly detrimental). Also, the emphasis on emotion is highly manipulative, particularly in the music portion of the service.

          9. The contrast between the charismatic and non-charismatic churches would be intriguing as well, given the rather more dramatic displays expected of the converted in the former.

Comments are closed.