Dan Atkinson "O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful & loving father, I acknowledge and confess [illegible] guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly and carelessly, that my prayers are become my sin and stand in need of pardon. I have heard thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer, so that, O Lord, tho' I have done thy work, yet it hath been so negligently that I may rather expect a curse than a blessing from thee. But, O God, who art rich in mercy and plenteous in redemption, mark not I beseech thee what I have done amiss, remember that i am but dust, and remit my transgressions, negligences, & ignorances, & cover them all with the absolute obedience of thy dear Son, that those sacrifices which I have offered may be accepted by thee, in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me..."
For my second installment on this blog, I would like to pick up with some comments made in my previous post regarding George Washington's prayer journal. As could be expected, Jon Rowe and Brad Hart came down on the side that the journal is an utter fabrication that is clearly not the work of our Commander-in-Chief. This conclusion, which is based purely on speculation and not fact, has been tossed around irresponsibly for decades and has caused most people to believe in this utter falsehood.
Originally discovered in 1891, the Washington Prayer Journal has electrified both supporters and denouncers of Washington's Christian faith. As can be seen from a sample from this journal, the language used clearly supports a deep abiding faith in Jesus Christ, which has naturally caused friction between secularists and believers. Here is just a sample from the Journal for you examine:
As can clearly be seen from the above text, George Washington (or the mystery author for you that doubt) invokes a deeply personal faith in salvation through Jesus Christ.
Of course this journal is not without its skeptics. Rupert Hughes, an alleged expert in handwriting (even though he lived in the 1920s when handwriting analysis was nothing like it is today) argued that the Washington Prayer Journal was an utter fraud:"The impossibility of the work being in Washington's hand should be apparent to the most casual comparison. The writer of the Prayers, for instance, always crosses his final "t's," and all his "t's" are squatty and fat. Washington always wrote a tall thin "t," and usually ended it with a mere sidewise uplift. Little words like "and," "the," "this," and "most" are utterly unlike Washington's other examples, early or late. The capital "I" is not like his, nor the familiar "G," nor the "L," nor the "D," nor any of the capitals. The same is true of the small letters, their joinings and angles. The dates and days of the week are not in the least like his. "
Yet Dr. Tim LaHaye, a legitimate expert of theology who has had his own handwriting experts analyse the Washington Journal stated the following:"That President George Washington was a devout believer in Jesus Christ and had accepted Him as His Lord and Savior is easily demonstrated by a reading of his personal prayer book (written in his own handwriting), which was discovered in 1891 among a collection of his papers. To date no historian has questioned its authenticity... An objective reading of these beautiful prayers verifies that were George Washington living today, he would freely identify with the Bible-believing branch of evangelical Christianity that is having such a positive influence on our nation."
Another important factor to consider in this debate is the fact that George Washington's handwriting changed over the course of his lifetime. Don't believe me? See for yourself. Here are some handwriting samples of George Washington for you to see what I am talking about:
Sample from 1735:
Sample from 1752:
Sample from 1792:
After enduring the hardships of an eight-year war, it comes as no surprise that an elderly Washington was not as steady with his pen. Clearly his handwriting was much sharper and clearer in his youth, which is the age of the prayer journal.
In conclusion, this should serve as irrefutable evidence to anyone that is willing to be honest with themselves that George Washington was a passionate believer in Jesus Christ.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Washington's Prayer Journal: Fact NOT Fiction
Posted by Dan at 2:29 PM
Labels: Evangelicalism, George Washington, Historical Myths, Prayer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Sorry Mr. Atkinson but I am afraid I will have to disagree with you for several reasons:
1.) You make it sound as though the only handwriting analysis ever done on the Washington prayer journal was done decades ago. This is not the case. The very best handwriting experts with the FBI have poured over this document and have concluded it to NOT be in the handwriting of GW.
Also, keep in mind that handwriting analysis takes into account changes over time. Having worked in law enforcement for a few years I had the opportunity to talk with handwriting experts. They are VERY qualified and trained to take into account a number of factors when it comes to handwriting.
2.) Your first handwriting sample, which you date as 1735, I find very interesting, especially when we consider the fact that Washington was born in 1732!!! Are you telling me that baby Washington could write like that at 3??? I have a three-year-old and I have never seen him write like that!
3.)Tim LaHaye, who you site as a "legitimate expert" is completely wrong on this matter. You quote LaHaye as saying:
"To date no historian has questioned its authenticity"
This could not be further from the truth. A countless number of historians -- dare I say the overwhelming MAJORITY -- not only question but completely doubt the validity of the Washington prayer journal.
Also, I don’t know if this website is where you got the handwriting sample images, but check it out:
http://deb8n1.com/religion/George_Washington/index.html
Once there, scroll down almost all the way to the bottom. There you will find the handwriting samples. Contrary to what Mr. Atkinson is saying here, these handwriting samples were actually used to DISPROVE the validity of the Washington journal, not defend it.
Sorry, but the prayer journal in question is not that of George Washington.
What Brad said. It's a fraud; even Peter Lillback and Peter Marshall now back away from it. And LaHaye's book on the Founding Fathers belongs in the "fiction" section with his Left Behind series.
Brad Hart says:
Are you telling me that baby Washington could write like that at 3??? I have a three-year-old and I have never seen him write like that!
Priceless!
As much as I'd like to believe this is Washington's journal, quoting Tim LaHaye's cache of legitimate experts does not go to far in establishing such claim. Mr. Hart above gives some solid examples to the contrary, though I would like at least one link to a respected Christian historian who agrees with this view (I.E., Mark Noll, George Marsden, etc. if this if fair?). Or maybe just a respected historian not completely in the secular camp. Not sure how fair it is to categories in such a way, I just know that many if not most historians are of the latter type, and quite willing to deny the journal as Washington's because of previously held beliefs.
Publius:
I sincerely doubt that Noll or any other legitimate historian -- Christian or secular leaning -- would lend credence to the "Washington prayer journal." As Jon states it is nothing more than a fraud. I would be literally shocked if a legitimate historian ever cited the journal as a legitimate souce.
Ok, so I admit getting the year wrong on the image. Thanks for pointing it out. 1745 instead of 1735. A thirteen-year-old Washington could write like that don't you think?
As for the rest of Brad Hart's critique, I feel that he is greatly overemphasizing the science and impact of these alleged handwriting samples. Handwriting DOES change over time and it DOES have an impact on how that handwriting analysis comes out. Also, we are talking about 18th century documents that have deteriorated over time, making handwriting analysis less than certain.
As for Tim LaHaye, you can say whatever you want about his writing. I think it is a sign of secular arrogance for Brad and Jon to consider Lahaye's work to be nothing more than "fiction."
Give me something that proves 100% that the Washington Journal is, as Brad and Jon state, "a fraud." You have not presented it as of yet.
What an odd post!
Give us even a hint of evidence that this journal is the work of Washington. It doesn't sound like any of his other writings, it expresses sentiments found no where else in his writings, it is not in his handwriting, it does not bear his name, and it was discovered years after his death.
How could we doubt it?
Amen, Dr. Cebula!
Gotta love overzealous Christian Nationalism!
Dan Atkinson posts: "Washington's Prayer Journal: Fact NOT Fiction"
Larry Cebula replies: "Give us even a hint of evidence that this journal is the work of Washington. It doesn't sound like any of his other writings, it expresses sentiments found no where else in his writings, it is not in his handwriting, it does not bear his name, and it was discovered years after his death."
Larry, I'd say "short and sweet", but I find your comment a great review :-)
Dan, welcome to the world of peer-review!
Dan,
I don’t know what kind of rigor they may expect in the ASU Department of Religious Studies but your labeling of the images that you use are either intentionally mislabeled in an attempt to fudge evidence not supportive of your position or your scholarship is sloppy. It would greatly help if you would provide links (or citations if links aren't available) to your sources so that the evidence you present can be independently examined.
These are the captions – respectively – at this site for the images that you present:
1) GW's 1745 copy book: (your caption: Sample from 1735:[sic])
2) GW's 1752 diary: (your caption: Sample from 1752:)
3) Daily Sacrifice (Prayer Journal) handwriting (allegedly 1752): (your caption: Sample from 1792:[sic])
Since GW was not a youth in 1792 and your third sample appears to be from the prayer journal that you acknowledge is from his youth then something doesn't add up. Is your source wrong or is the one that I cited wrong?
Notice that the second and third of the examples that you present are each apparently from 1752. This does not bode well for your assertion that handwriting changes over time (and your secondary speculation that the war may have changed GWs writing). There is another example from GW's journal dated 1760 available at the site.
Dan - "...an alleged expert in handwriting..."
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Dan - "I think it is a sign of secular arrogance for Brad and Jon to consider Lahaye's work to be nothing more than 'fiction.'"
Hmm, more ad hominem. No, it's a matter of scholarship.
Dan commented: "I think it is a sign of secular arrogance for Brad and Jon to consider Lahaye's work to be nothing more than 'fiction.' Give me something that proves 100% that the Washington Journal is, as Brad and Jon state, 'a fraud.' You have not presented it as of yet."
? ? ? ? ... Dan, Please explain your comment above.
Do you object to the insistence of evidence, or the lack in faith, on the part of Brad & Jon, that your unsubstantiated opinion is the truth?
Please do not attack my implied qualification that your position is founded in faith. Such has already been clarified by your stated opinion that Brad and Jon debate from a secular position.
Also keep in mind that Secularism is not an affront to religion and/or faith ... Secularism is not an affront to religion, provided evidence and reason do not have to yield to doctrine and dogma.
Post a Comment