The Bible and Slavery in Colonial America The Bible was used by both critics and defenders of slavery in the American colonies. What explains their conflicting use? Mark A. Noll As difficult as it is now to imagine, widespread debate over the morality of Black-only chattel slavery—including consideration of the subject from Scripture—arose only late in Western history. While popes and a few others insisted on the humanity of enslaved peoples, European territorial expansion presupposed a racial hierarchy that slid easily into enslavement of the peoples encountered in that expansion. Early Protests The first recorded protest against slavery in colonial America, and also the first to enlist the Bible for that purpose, came from Quakers and Mennonites in Germantown, Pennsylvania, who in 1688 published a broadside featuring the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12): “There is a saying, that we should doe to all men, licke as we will be done ourselves: macking no difference of what generation, descent, or Colour they are.”1“Gerret Hendricks, Derick op de Graeff, Francis Daniell Pastorius, and Abraham op den Graef,” in American Antislavery Writings: Colonial Beginnings to Emancipation, ed. James G. Basker (2012), 1. Several other Quakers would make the same argument based on the same text. These appeals also added Jesus’ words from the Second Commandment: “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mark 12:31 and parallels)—and most of the other scriptures that would fill the biblical quiver of later abolitionists. Thus, only five years after the Germantown protest (1688), George Keith published An Exhortation & Caution to Friends Concerning Buying or Keeping of Negroes that emphasized the Mosaic prohibition against manstealing (Exod. 21:16—“he that stealeth a Man and selleth him, if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to Death”). At mid-century, John Woolman and Anthony Benezet published the most thorough of such works. Although Wollman’s Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes: Recommended to the Professors of Christianity of Every Denomination (1754) and Benezet’s Observations on the Enslaving, Importing and Purchasing of Negroes (1759) appealed to liberty of conscience, humanitarian sentiment, and Enlightenment ideals as they attacked the system, the New Testament remained their foundation. One non-Quaker biblical protest did come from Puritan New England when in 1700 Judge Samuel Sewall published a pamphlet entitled The Selling of Joseph. Sewall too cited the Golden Rule and the Mosaic prohibition against man-stealing, while he also explained that “the curse of Canaan” from Genesis 9:25 had nothing to do with contemporary Africa or modern slavery. Initial Responses Responding to Judge Sewall, John Saffin replied with a text that soon became standard for biblical defenses of slavery. It was the Mosaic legislation from Leviticus 25 that allowed the Hebrews to enslave “the heathen that are round about you” (25:44), including the children born to these non-Israelites. Saffin’s effort in replying to Sewall was unusual. Except for the Quakers, who were always suspect for their radical pacifism and standoffish customs, white Americans relied much more on inertia than on argument in maintaining the system that by the eighteenth century had become thoroughly established in the northern as well as southern colonies. A diagram of the British slave ship Brooks published by an abolitionist group in Plymouth in 1788. Source Widespread contention over the morality of slavery, including the moral witness of Scripture, arose only in the 1770s when American patriots claimed the British Parliament was threatening them with “slavery.” Significantly, however, even as agitation increased, few in the colonies considered what the Bible had to say about the racially specific character of the American system. Controversy flared in 1772 when Thomas Thompson, an Anglican missionary with experience in West Africa, the West Indies, and New Jersey, published The African Trade for Negro Slaves, Shewn to be Consistent with Principles of Humanity, and with the Laws of Revealed Religion. Thompson ranged widely with reference to the Pauline injunction that slaves remain in that calling (1 Cor. 7:20–21) and the Apostle’s return of the slave Onesimus to his master Philemon. But his main argument was a categorical assertion based on Leviticus 25:44–46: “This conclusion may be drawn, that the buying and selling of slaves is not contrary to the law of nature.”2Thomas Thompson, The African slave trade for Negro slaves, shewn to be consistent with principles of humanity, and with the laws of revealed religion (1772), 15. The ability to quote chapter and verse gave Thompson assurance that slavery could not be a violation of God’s law. The ability to quote chapter and verse gave Thompson assurance that slavery could not be a violation of God’s law. American and British Rebuttals Immediate rebuttals from Americans and from British works published in the colonies showed that others were reading Scripture differently. The first came from Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia physician who would later sign the Declaration of Independence. Although Rush’s Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, upon Slave-Keeping (1773) relied more on general reasoning than direct biblical argument, he vigorously contested the scriptural basis for slavery. Thus, the Old Testament permission that allowed Israel to enslave surrounding nations reflected only God’s desire to preserve the purity of the Jewish people as a vehicle for the coming Messiah. In Rush’s reading, the Old Testament contained many other hints about the illegitimate character of the institution, like the Jubilee liberation promised every seven years to Hebrews in bonds, which pointed directly to “the Gospel, the Design of which was to abolish all distinctions of name and country.”3Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, upon Slave-Keeping (1773), 12. RelatedThe Day the Bible Became a BestsellerJeffrey KlohaThe Bible Jesus ReadJohn D. MeadeWhy Are Protestant and Catholic Bibles Different?John D. Meade Americans discovered more thorough biblical arguments when they read two works published in the colonies by the leading British abolitionist, Granville Sharp, in 1773 and 1776. The first of these pamphlets opened with Psalm 9:9 on its title page: “The Lord also will be a Refuge for the Oppressed—a Refuge in Time of Trouble.” It proceeded with appeals to British common law, universal moral principles, and natural equality, but never wandered far from Scripture. In particular, Sharp contended that Leviticus 25 applied only locally and had nothing to do with Africans. With greatest urgency, Sharp claimed that the Old Testament provision for slavery had been “certainly annulled, or rather superseded … by the more perfect doctrines of universal benevolence taught by Christ himself, who “came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law,” including the law as outlined in Leviticus itself, chapter 19 verse 18: “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”4Granville Sharp, An Essay on Slavery, Proving From Scripture its Inconsistency with Humanity and Religion (1773), 20. Buttressed by a hail of supporting quotations (from Prov. 14:34, Hab. 1:13, Matt. 7:12, Luke 4:18, Acts 8:27, Acts 10:34, the book of Philemon, 1 Cor. 7:22, and more), Sharp rested his case firmly on Scripture. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: When Richard Nisbet replied to Benjamin Rush’s work, this Englishman who had lived in Nevis and St. Kitts before moving to Philadelphia, defended the reputation of British planters by countering Rush’s use of the Bible. In his account, “the scriptures, instead of forbidding it [slavery], declare it lawful.” As proof, he again quoted Leviticus 25:44–46 and many other Old Testament passages (Exod. 21:4–6, 20, 22; Deut. 15:16–17; Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). For the New Testament, Nisbet turned the tables on Rush by implying, as many proslavery advocates would do in later decades, that if Jesus said nothing about slavery, those who twisted the New Testament against the system revealed their own drift toward infidelity: “the Addresser [i.e., Rush] is so wicked as to accuse our Saviour of the meanest dissimulation” by failing to mention slavery simply because it was allowed under Roman law. Rather than an argument against slavery, such misreadings of Scripture revealed that “this Gentleman, attempting to be religious, becomes blasphemous.”5Richard Nisbet, Slavery Not Forbidden by Scripture: or a Defense of the West-India Planters, from the Aspersions Thrown Out Against Them, by the Author of a Pamphlet, Entitled “An Address . . .” (1773), 3, 8. Explaining the Conflicting Use of the Bible John Newton. Source On why constant appeal to Scripture could lead to such conflicting results, John Newton, the hymn writer (“Amazing Grace”) and former slave trader offered a succinct explanation. According to Newton, “The Slave Trade was always unjustifiable; but inattention and interest prevented, for a time, the evil from being perceived.”6John Newton, Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade (1788), 6. In other words, the weight of convention and the allure of profit overcame whatever biblical imperatives might have been alert to the humanity of enslaved Africans. It is also possible, however, that the way bibles appeared on the page played a role. The printing format that divided Scripture into verses (usually with each verse set as the beginning of a new paragraph) began in English only with the Geneva Bible (1557, 1560). Versification of Scripture, even if only a recent innovation, proved a godsend, especially for Protestants eager to heed biblical truths and ponder difficulties of biblical interpretation. But it was a gain with a cost, including the notion that individual verses (prooftexts) taken by themselves, or assembled as discrete facts from throughout the Scriptures, simply equaled biblical revelation. Versification of Scripture proved a godsend, especially for Protestants eager to heed biblical truths and ponder difficulties of biblical interpretation. To be sure, biblical abolitionists could also quote chapter and verse, but their scriptural appeals also treated scriptural revelation as developing from the Old Testament into the New—what may have been appropriate for Old Israel might no longer be appropriate for the New Israel. They regularly appealed to historical context for correct biblical application—Paul’s instructions that slaves obey masters needed to be understood as prudent instructions saving infant churches from attack by Roman authorities. They often asked Bible believers not simply to prooftext, but to reason—if believers were to love their neighbors as themselves, could it possibly be scriptural to deny any human the respect due to those made in the image of God? Especially African American believers would soon be pointing out that, whatever the Bible may say about slavery in general, all of the slaves referenced in Scripture were white. White colonial Americans, like all humans in all circumstances, had difficulty seeing the forces that shaped how they were seeing. Those forces included colonization of what Europeans called a “new world”; Africans treated as commodities for trade; personal fortunes and family security resting directly or indirectly on sugar, cotton, tobacco, or trade in these commodities; and the production of sugar, tobacco, and cotton dependent on an enslaved work force. An additional factor may have been the nearly universal reliance on bibles divided into chapters and verses that made prooftexting seem more authoritative than any other way of appealing to the Sacred Text. More of Dr. Noll’s work on the Bible and slavery in America is found in the books mentioned in his bio below. Notes1“Gerret Hendricks, Derick op de Graeff, Francis Daniell Pastorius, and Abraham op den Graef,” in American Antislavery Writings: Colonial Beginnings to Emancipation, ed. James G. Basker (2012), 1.2Thomas Thompson, The African slave trade for Negro slaves, shewn to be consistent with principles of humanity, and with the laws of revealed religion (1772), 15.3Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America, upon Slave-Keeping (1773), 12.4Granville Sharp, An Essay on Slavery, Proving From Scripture its Inconsistency with Humanity and Religion (1773), 20.5Richard Nisbet, Slavery Not Forbidden by Scripture: or a Defense of the West-India Planters, from the Aspersions Thrown Out Against Them, by the Author of a Pamphlet, Entitled “An Address . . .” (1773), 3, 8.6John Newton, Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade (1788), 6.
The Jefferson Bible and the Faith of an American Founder Thomas Jefferson’s cut-and-paste version of the Gospels reveals important facets of the famous founder’s faith and the Bible’s role in American history. Thomas S. Kidd The “Jefferson Bible” is arguably the most controversial religious text in American history. Perhaps the other most obvious contender is Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon. But while the Book of Mormon has become one of the most printed and widely distributed books in world history, Thomas Jefferson never published his Bible in his lifetime. Indeed, the Jefferson Bible never got published at all during the 1800s, despite publishers’ offers to do so. Congress finally produced an edition of it in 1904, after the Smithsonian obtained the compilation from a Jefferson descendant. In 2011, the National Museum of American History restored the fragile text, allowing for its long-term preservation and the production of a new, beautiful facsimile edition. The Origins of Jefferson’s Bible What we call the Jefferson Bible is Jefferson’s cut-and-paste edition of extracts from the Gospels. Partisans cannot agree what Jefferson’s intentions for the Bible were, however. Secular devotees of Jefferson see the Jefferson Bible as the epitome of his skeptical religious views. Some Christian admirers of Jefferson have argued, conversely, that the text reveals Jefferson as a Christian, albeit an enigmatic one. Such Christians say that the text was actually a simplified version of the Gospels, one intended for education or evangelism of people unfamiliar with the Bible, especially the “Indians.” The four-columned, cut-and-paste Jefferson Bible after recent preservation work. Image credit The “Indians” were explicitly named as the audience for the first version of the Jefferson Bible, which the president produced in 1804. Unfortunately, the text of that first edition was lost, but the title page survived. He called this “wee little book” The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth … Being an abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians. Scholars have debated whether “Indians” literally referred to Native Americans, or perhaps to Jefferson’s Christian enemies in the Federalist Party, who reviled him as a heretic and closet atheist. Whatever Jefferson meant, he explained later to John Adams that he composed the first Bible for his “own use.” Like the second edition, the first apparently contained a distillation of Jesus’ moral and ethical teachings. Unlike the second version, however, the first run at his Gospels compilation was only in English. The second was a polyglot edition, with side-by-side passages in English, French, Greek, and Latin. The fact that Jefferson was capable of compiling the Gospels in four languages testifies to the man’s enormous intellectual accomplishments. The fact that Jefferson was capable of compiling the Gospels in four languages testifies to the man’s enormous intellectual accomplishments, including in his studies of the Bible and biblical languages. Jefferson seems to have read the Bible regularly, including the Greek New Testament, and the Septuagint, or the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Other prominent founders, including James Madison and John Adams, could also read Hebrew, but Jefferson never learned that biblical language. Indeed, Jefferson got irritated at Adams for suggesting that a truly educated man needed to be able to read both the Old and New Testaments in the original languages. In any case, Jefferson’s deep perusal of the Scriptures and his large collection of Bibles (some of which he dismantled to use in the compilations) could easily give a Christian observer the idea that the man was a devout Christian. Diamonds in a Dunghill Over his life, Jefferson did develop increasing reverence for Jesus’ ethical teachings. A close look at the Jefferson Bible reveals that it was a fundamentally skeptical project, however, when viewed from a traditional Christian perspective. Most notoriously, Jefferson literally used scissors to cut out sections of the Gospels that he pasted into his compilation. Thus, it was not so much that Jefferson cut out miracles in the Gospels, but that he left them behind, as tattered remnants in the New Testaments he mined for Jesus’ ethical principles. Why would Jefferson do this? Because, as an early advocate of what became known as “higher criticism” of the Bible, Jefferson regarded much of the New Testament as mythology. The stories of Jesus’ wonder-working powers were largely crafted and imposed on the man by misguided followers after his death. Jefferson saw Jesus’ ethics as the philosophical treasure of the Bible. But getting at that treasure was like picking out “diamonds in a dunghill,” he wrote. Jesus’ morals were the diamonds; the rest of the Bible was a veritable dunghill. One of two English source copies used by Jefferson to make his Bible. Image source Jefferson called the second volume, which he completed in 1820, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” The 84-page book focused primarily on Jesus’ teachings, parables, and some episodes from his life and ministry. It is tempting to characterize the Jefferson Bible as the Gospels without miracles. Most notably, Jefferson’s Gospel narrative ends with Jesus’ burial, and includes no resurrection. To traditional Christians of any denomination, it would be impossible to accept a version of the Gospels that does not include the empty tomb. Christians therefore should be hesitant to go along with some evangelical popularizers’ efforts to cast the Jefferson Bible as being within the bounds of historic orthodoxy. Neither is the Jefferson Bible as naturalistic as some secular observers would suggest, however. There are miracles in the Jefferson Bible, or at least references to supernatural events. There are also suggestions that Jesus operated under divine inspiration. Jefferson’s Jesus has foreknowledge of the future, and the Jefferson Bible includes references to hell, the end times, the Second Coming, and the general resurrection of mankind. So Jefferson was not as rigorous about excising all supernatural content from the Gospels as a casual observer might assume. Why Jefferson left such supernatural references in the compilation is uncertain. He never exactly explained his rationale for what got included, and what got cut. RelatedFive Decisions Every Bible Translator Must MakePeter J. GurryThe Bible and Slavery in Colonial AmericaMark A. NollWhy Are Protestant and Catholic Bibles Different?John D. Meade Principles of Production The beginning pages of the Jefferson Bible suggest how he proceeded, however. Jefferson skipped over the account of the angel Gabriel’s appearance to Mary in Luke 1, and went straight to Luke 2:1: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.” Jefferson included historical material about Jesus’ life, but he tended not to include passages where supernatural beings or miracles were driving the narrative. Thus, he stopped at Luke 2:7, with the baby Jesus being laid in a manger, and skipped the angels appearing to the shepherds and declaring “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” He picked up again at Luke 2:21a, Jesus’ circumcision, but he excised the note in 2:21b that the child was called Jesus, “so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” But Jefferson didn’t always follow his angel’s rule, either. He included Jesus’ remarkable prediction in Matthew 13:41–42 that “the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Here we have references both to angels and to a fiery judgment in hell. This is exactly the sort of stuff you would think Jefferson wouldn’t put in his Bible. But this passage apparently “made the cut” (pun intended) because it was part of Jesus’ interpretation of a parable. Jefferson liked the parables, so he sometimes included supernatural references if they were part of those teachings. Jefferson perhaps did not obsess over the exclusion of supernatural happenings as much as we might expect. The biblical text is obviously interwoven with miraculous claims and accounts, so he may not have found it easy to be entirely naturalistic in his selections. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Whatever his rationale for the selections, Jefferson was an early example of a long tradition in elite studies of the Bible: judging Scripture’s authenticity by one’s own standards of reason. Most of the secular and liberal academic study of the Scriptures assumes that the Bible contains some content that was added by later authors or transcribers. Some of the Bible’s contents could be historically reliable, such critics reckon, but other parts were tacked on for ideological or polemical purposes or to enhance Jesus’ messianic claims. To discover the “historical Jesus,” one must dispense with the accretions and identify the more “authentic” content. This type of higher critical approach reached its apex in the oft-lampooned “Jesus Seminar” of the 1980s and ’90s. This meeting of prestigious higher critical scholars famously voted on the authenticity of Gospel passages by using colored beads to indicate their confidence in the authenticity of individual verses. A Sect unto Himself The problem with such approaches is that the Jesus who emerges after the requisite excisions tends to look like the critic’s “Personal Jesus,” as a 1989 Depeche Mode song put it. If you want a hippie Jesus, you get one. If you want a non-divine Jesus (as Jefferson wished), you get one. Once you assume that parts of Scripture are erroneous, unreliable, or ahistorical, your decisions about what should “stay in” tend to become fatally subjective. Once you assume that parts of Scripture are erroneous, unreliable, or ahistorical, your decisions about what should “stay in” tend to become fatally subjective. Of course, even biblical inerrantists are tempted to emphasize certain parts of Scripture over others. But while lots of people have implicitly cut out sections of Scripture they don’t like, Jefferson literally did so. Doing this could not produce anything but a radically individualized, cut-and-paste version of Christianity. Jefferson admitted as much in 1819, while he was beginning to compose the Jefferson Bible. He told a correspondent that year “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.” To Jefferson, being a sect by yourself was a good thing. But such radical individual judgment of the text certainly doesn’t foster confidence in the Bible’s plenary inspiration. No matter how you “cut it,” there’s no doubt that the Jefferson Bible was an attack on the reliability of Scripture.