John Adams: Loved the Bible but thought its Extant Texts Corrupted By Institutional Authorities

John Adams' eccentric and nuanced opinions of the Bible/Christian religion are especially prone to "out of context," cherry picking for various sides in the historical political-theological culture wars, wishing to "score points." 

For instance, he once wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my Streightened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World.

Yet, he also believed that he was reading a canon of books whose contents had been corrupted. In Adams' world, the Roman Catholic Church was the chief "corrupter of Christianity," but that corruption also infected institutional Protestantism as well. For instance, Adams -- who considered himself a "liberal unitarian Christian" -- blamed Roman Catholicism for the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which he bitterly rejected; he also rejected the King James Bible because it was too Catholic!

As he wrote to his son and namesake:

What do you call “The Bible”? The Translation by King James the first? More than half a Catholick.?

But it went beyond merely the KJV. In the same letter he continued:

“The Bible a Rule of Faith.”! What Bible? King James’s? The Hebrew? The Septuagint,? The Vulgate? The Bibles now translated or translating into Chinese, Indian, Negro and all the other Languages of Europe Asia and Affrica? Which of the thirty thousand Variantia are the Rule of Faith? 

But he had especial disdain for the KJV. As he also wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

We have now, it seems a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better, to apply these pious subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity, than to propagate these corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America! 

In particular, John Adams didn't trust ANY of the texts of the Bible whose original manuscripts were written in Hebrew. He thought the original Hebrew manuscripts were ordered burnt by Pope Gregory the 9th such that essential truths contained therein were purposefully concealed. 

In fact, Adams thought this included not just the Old Testament, but St. Paul's writings. Adams believed, contrary to most biblical scholars, that Paul's original writings were in Hebrew (and thus burnt as part of Pope Gregory's efforts) as opposed to Greek.

Ultimately, this quotation from Adams summarizes how he approached the extant texts of then available Bibles:

What suspicions of interpolation, and indeed fabrication, might not be confuted if we had the originals! In an age or in ages when fraud, forgery, and perjury were considered as lawful means of propagating truth by philosophers, legislators, and theologians, what may not be suspected?

Though, Adams was still a devout theist and believer in Jesus (as he Adams understood Him) and thought somewhere in there, the Bibles whose corrupted text he was reading contained profound truth.  

 

John Quincy Adams Believed All Bibles Contained Errors

When discussing the Old Testament, Adams ranks which version he prefers; though he notes he thought all translations contained errors. As he wrote to his father on July 7th, 1814:

I promised you that I would answer your questions of my opinions with regard to the Bible, and of my acquaintance with it—I have not studied the Canon of the Old Testament, because to my deep and constant regret I do not understand the languages in which it was written—I have never learnt either the Hebrew, or Chaldaic Characters, and therefore never could read a line of the Old Testament, in the Original—I have only read it in the Modern English French and German Translations for I have hitherto not even had the opportunity of going through either the Greek Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate, as I hope at some future day to do—of the translations which I have read, that in German, made by Luther, is incomparably the Best—The French one, originally made by Calvin, and revised by the Pastors of the Church at Geneva, is upon the whole not quite equal to the common English Bible published with the Dedication to James the 1st.—But in all there are a multitude of errors; and they are all so far from giving me satisfaction, that I shall never forgive myself, for neglecting to learn the Hebrew, when the opportunity for learning it was in my own hands.  

So as we see, Adams puts the KJV above Calvin's Geneva Bible, but also puts Luther's German translation at the very top. He notes that because he didn't read Hebrew that he's not competent in the original language to fully comprehend the Old Testament. 

The elder John Adams adhered to an extremely "heterodox" faith that contrasted to the orthodoxy that was more institutionally ingrained in late 18th century America. He considered himself a "liberal unitarian Christian." The scholar Dr. Joseph Waligore terms him a "Jesus-Centered-Deist." Whereas Dr. Gregg Frazer terms him a "theistic rationalist." 

These terms are used to distinguish from that more conventional orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. John Quincy Adams, during a period of time in his adult life, opted for that more traditional understanding of the faith, with a Calvinist bent. 

However, JQA seemed to vacillate, during his adult life, between the two -- the more conventional Calvinistic Christianity and his father's heterodoxy. I've gotten confused more than once when reading the younger Adams during periods of time in history when he supposedly was a traditional Calvinist, and it sounds like it's his father's heterodoxy talking. 

As the saying goes, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. 

Briefly More From St. George Tucker on Church and State

This more from St. George Tucker's commentary on William Blackstone and common law principles. Tucker worked with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in Virginia. He appeared to have the same ideology on church and state relations, which is strongly anti-establishment. When examining contemporary arguments the secular left and religious right give, we see a lot of "cherry picking" of quotations from both sides (and unfortunately, spreading "unconfirmed quotations" as well).

For instance, in his private letters, Thomas Jefferson often bitterly rails against the Trinitarian priestcraft. James Madison is more tame here. However, his Memorial and Remonstrance has some fierce quotations bitterly criticizing institutionally established religion (that document also has parts that "talk up" Christianity; hence the cherry picking).

Tucker, though, has some interesting quotations that we don't tend to see repeated nearly as much (if at all). The one on Moloch and Jehovah seems like it could have gone viral. Below I'm going to reproduce more from the Tucker on Blackstone document. Richard Price's name comes up (at times it's hard to tell where Price's words end and Tucker's begin). (Because I've edited the passages, please read the whole thing for context and make your minds up for yourselves.)

What that, here is Tucker:

1. ... The infallibility of the rulers of nations, in matters of religion, hath been a doctrine practically enforced from the earliest periods of history to the present moment among jews, pagans, mahometans, and christians, alike. The altars of Moloch and of Jehovah have been equally stained with the blood of victims, whose conscience did not receive conviction from the polluted doctrines of blood thirsty priests and tyrants. ... 

In liberty of conscience says the elegant Dr. Price, I include much more than toleration. Jesus Christ has established a perfect equality among his followers. His command is, that they shall assume no jurisdiction over one another, and acknowledge no master besides himself. It is, therefore, presumption in any of them to claim a right to any superiority or pre-eminence over their bretheren. Such a claim is implied, whenever any of them pretend to tolerate the rest. Not only all christians, but all men of all religions, ought to be considered by a state as equally entitled to it's protection, as far as they demean themselves honestly and peaceably. ...

America's Founders, Christianity and the Common Law

The English jurist William Blackstone is properly regarded as the preeminent authority behind English common law. After successfully separating from Great Britain, America retained the common law. There was one problem however: it needed revision to suit America's newfound circumstances. The main problem with Blackstone was that he was a Tory who supported Great Britain over America in the conflict; to the extent that those sentiments existed in the common law, they had to be scrubbed.

But who would do it? Well, a number of founding era figures participated in the project; and ultimately American courts would wade their way through the waters on a case-by-case basis. There were two Founders in particular of whom I am aware who did comprehensive restatements, with proper revisions, of the English common law: James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and St. George Tucker of Virginia.

On the matter of Christianity and its status in "the common law," Blackstone did indeed claim that Christianity was part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson denied this was true and thought Blackstone was in error. The point of this post is not to settle who was right, but rather note some complex dynamics relating to how the common law functioned in America, specifically as it pertains to this particular issue.

Also, the point of this post is not to "deconstruct" the common law; it did and to some extent still does exist in America today at a coherent level. Blackstone, Wilson and Tucker were by in large agreed on the matter. Still, there were complex issues on the margins where they disagreed and over time disagreements in American courts over the content of the common law led to the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that the substance of the common law is simply a matter of state law and they are free to disagree with one another here.

The status of Christianity and its relationship to the common law is one of those "issues," as we have seen above, that engenders disagreement. As noted above, Jefferson disagreed with Blackstone's notion that Christianity was part of the common law. James Wilson stated that Christianity was part of the common law -- though what kind of Christianity Wilson was referring to isn't settled. 

The American founding took place in the backdrop of extreme sectarian squabbles among the different sects. Indeed, such was the driver behind America's concepts of religious liberty, disestablishment and some kind of "separation of church and state." Removing Christianity's status from the civil law -- what Jefferson and James Madison desired -- was one solution to the problem. Though America's founders themselves disagreed on where the lines properly draw here. 

Here is where Tucker's understanding might be of interest. Politically, he seemed more aligned with Jefferson and Madison, so one might expect that Tucker would reject the notion that Christianity is part of the common law and otherwise support principles that separate Christianity's status from civil government. Perhaps he did. But I did uncover him seeming to support integrating a type of "Christianity" into American law. 

It was Richard Price's Enlightenment theology. Tucker quoted from Price verbatim in his notes on Blackstone and the common law. Price's "Christianity" was Arian in its Christology. I put "Christianity" in quotes, by the way, simply to illustrate the fact that certain institutional forces in the 18th Century -- and indeed, long before that, and to some extent today -- don't consider Arianism to be part of "Christianity." 

Here is a taste of Tucker quoting Price in his commentaries on Blackstone and the common law:

It is indeed only a rational and liberal religion; a religion founded on just notions of the Deity, as a Being who regards equally every sincere worshipper, and by whom all are alike favoured as far as they act up to the light they enjoy: a religion which consists in the imitation of the moral perfections of an Almighty but Benevolent Governor of Nature, who directs for the best, all events, in confidence in the care of his providence, in resignation to his will, and in the faithful discharge of every duty of piety and morality from a regard to his authority, and the apprehension of a future righteous retribution. ... This is the religion that every enlightened friend to mankind will be zealous to support. But it is a religion that the powers of the world know little of, and which will always be best promoted by being left free and open.

An Old Jared Sparks Post is Still Relevant

I wrote this in 2008 (yeah, I've been doing this for a while). I'm hoping to shed light on some of the "issues" relating to how we understand and categorize America's founders religious creeds with the terms that are used. Many "Deists" and almost all "Unitarians" of the period in which we study -- mainly the 18th century, but also the antecedent late 17th and subsequent early 19th centuries -- considered themselves to be "Christians." 

Rather, it was the orthodox Trinitarians -- perhaps not all, but the "theologian" types -- who would deny them that label.

With that, this is Jared Sparks, a very notable early 19th Century scholar of the American founding and a Unitarian, defending the notion that Unitarians like himself are entitled to the "Christian" label against one Rev. Samuel Miller of Princeton who himself was quite prominent, back in the day:

And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles, which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name.

Yes, I agree, John Locke was almost certainly a theological unitarian. We are dealing with different baselines for the term "Christian." Theological unitarianism, by definition, rejects the articulation of the Trinity found in the Nicene Creed and like places. Most of such unitarians rejected the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement*, all the while believing Jesus is Messiah/Son of God. 

*The majority of such unitarians were Arians and Socinians, with Arianism predominating. The theology of both rejects the Trinity and Incarnation. Some of these unitarians posit a doctrine that sounds like the Atonement, but it's an unorthodox version. Others outright reject the Atonement by name. Some scholars lump in Modalists/Sabellians with "unitarianism." Though, such believes God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- which sounds like a Trinity; though, such also denies F, S & HS are eternally distinct, but rather different titles/forms that God as One Person holds.  

Does this Quotation Reveal John Adams as a "Conspiracy Theorist"?

I will let the readers decide. It's also not the only one Adams has given like this (he actually has many). But this one well captures his sentiment. To Thomas Jefferson, July 9th 1813:

... No sooner has one Party discovered or invented an Amelioration of the Condition of Man or the order of Society, than the opposite Party, belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it. Records are destroyed. Histories are annihilated or interpolated, or prohibited Sometimes by Popes, Sometimes by Emperors, Sometimes by Aristocratical and Sometimes by democratical Assemblies and Sometimes by Mobs.

Aristotle wrote the History and description of Eighteen hundred Republicks, which existed before his time. Cicero wrote two Volumes of discoures on Government, which perhaps were worth all the rest of his Works. The Works of Livy and Tacitus & that are lost, would be more interesting than all that remain. Fifty Gospells have been destroyed, and where are St. Lukes World of Books that had been written? If you ask my Opinion, who has committed all the havoc? I will answer you candidly; Ecclesiastical and Imperial Despotism has done it, to conceal their Frauds.

Why are the Histories of all Nations, more ancient than the Chrtian Æra, lost? Who destroyed the Alexandrian Library? I believe that Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbis Grecian Sages and Roman Emperors had as great a hand in it as Turks and Mahomitans.

Burr is a Founding Father

Over the years, we delved very deeply into the "were America's founders Christians or Deists?" debate and one issue is "are all founders created equal?" (Because a disproportionate number of the religiously heterodox thinkers occupied prominent positions, and are termed "key founders," intimating their positions should be held with higher regard, as we will discuss more below.)

Firstly, we must establish "what is a founder?" That definition is up for debate. Certainly, all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (but do its five authors have more weight?). And those at the Constitutional Convention. Well 39 out of the 55 delegates signed the document. What about the 16, like Patrick Henry, who did not? (Because he "smelt a rat.") Well, those Anti-Federalists played an important role in helping to deliver the Bill of Rights.

The "key Founders" -- George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin and a few others -- get most of the attention. And we also debate who are the "few others" who are entitled to this "first tier status"?

But should there even be a "first tier status"? That is, it's been argued that if one qualifies as a "founder" then they are entitled to some kind of equal status with regards to their authority as the others.

This is something that struck me: As much attention as we've paid to various founders, even those who don't qualify as "key founders," there are all sorts of ones that we've ignored.

There is one notable founder ignored in particular in the sense that he's NEVER cited authoritatively. Though, technically he qualifies as a "founding father." Indeed, arguably he's 2nd tier up there with John Jay, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Rush and others.

His name is Aaron Burr. The guy was, among other things, a Senator and then Vice President of the United States; he WAS a founder whose position "counts." But, again, almost never invoked authoritatively.

On the religious issues, it's been noted that Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin were "non orthodox Trinitarian Christians"; we could say "Deists," but that raises another can of worms because all three believed in Providence. And research has arguably demonstrated the term "Providential Deist" is actually NOT a contradiction. (But we may wish to use a different term anyway to describe such for other reasons.)

There are others too who perhaps belong in that heterodox box, though there's not as much evidence. John Marshall, for instance. George Wythe. Also James Madison, George Washington and G. Morris. Though as much scrutiny as we've put Madison and Washington under, there is still some doubt as to which way either of them should be categorized (other than both believing in a warm Providence at minimum).

I think Aaron Burr too was, despite his uber-orthodox family lineage, one of the "not orthodox Christian" types. I think I remember Christian Nationalist David Barton once call him a "Deist." Take this with a grain of salt. I'm going from memory and this was years ago. And Barton has been put through so much scrutiny (much arguably deserved). In fact, it may have been Benedict Arnold that I remember Barton categorizing as a Deist.

But the point is Burr may be presently invoked, but he's NOT cited authoritatively as a "founding father." I DO remember Barton narrating the Burr/Hamilton duel on a video production and when Burr's name was mentioned, the production played ominous music.

In other words, Burr wasn't a "real founder." Rather he was some kind of villainous anti-founder. You could legitimately categorize Benedict Arnold that way. Jacob Duche too (who is often portrayed as some kind of hero according to the Christian Nationalist narrative). Because both of them turned against "the cause."

But not Burr. He was a "real founder." If these bean counting citations matter, there's no reason for him not to score authoritative points for whatever positions or beliefs he held. If what he did to Hamilton could poison his authoritative well, Hamilton's affair could poison his. G. Morris' rampant promiscuous fornication and adultery (he was unmarried but had sex with married women) could poison his, James Wilson landing in debtor's prison could poison his, etc. etc. I haven't looked closely into Burr's religious creed like I have the others. But we may wish to start with this piece from The Saturday Evening Post in 1868 which suggest he was a "freethinker" bucking conventional religious beliefs, but that he had an orthodox Christian death. Which if true would make his faith journey ironically similar to Hamilton's. (I'm convinced with most scholars that Hamilton didn't become a traditional orthodox Christian until after his son died in a duel.) Though the Post piece certainly needs to be "fact checked."