> Dear Sir, I have just read the statement on your web page that Jefferson
> believed that he had distilled "the very words only of Jesus" in his
> Jefferson Bible.  To the extent of my familiarity with these matters,
> that's my view also.  However, in the November issue of Freethought
> Today, monthly of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, FT staffer Dan
> Barker has written an essay claiming that Jefferson described the words
> of Jesus as a "dunghill" (referring to J's letter of Oct 12, 1813 to
> John Adams, in which the phrase "diamonds in a dunghill" appears.  I
> wrote to the editor of FR, Annie Laurie Gaylor, to express my strongest
> doubt that this was Jefferson's meaning here, but Mr. Barker has
> replied, maintaining his position, and saying only that perhaps he
> should have written that Jefferson considered "some of Jesus' sayings to
> constitute a dunghill."  I find this very sloppy thinking, to say the
> least.  Can you offer me your view on this matter?  

Jefferson never described any of the genuine words of Jesus as a dunghill.
If you will examine Jefferson's letter to John Adams (of Oct. 13, 1813), you
will see that Jefferson speaks of "extracting the pure principles which he
taught" and stripping off "the artificial vestments in which they have been
muffled by priests" and ending up with "the very words only of Jesus."
THEN, he goes on to say,

"There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of
morals which has ever been offered to man.  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 dunghill is EVERYTHING OTHER THAN what Jefferson considered the true
words of Jesus, i.e., all the junk that others have added.  Mr. Barker is
mistaken.

> Dear Mr. Coates,  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  Your reply conforms exactly
> to what was my critical response to FT.  May I have your permission to forward it
> to them? 

You may send my reply to Mr. Barker, if you wish.  I suspect, however, that
what Mr. Barker is saying is that some of the words ATTRIBUTED TO Jesus --
but not the words that Jefferson thought were the genuine ones -- were
compared to a dunghill by Jefferson.  With that condition attached, Mr.
Barker is correct.  Thus, if you do write him further, you might suggest
this possibility as a mediating point.