“The governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that ‘if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me’.”― Christopher Hitchens
Executive summary
Christopher Hitchens’ one-liner about “the governor of Texas” saying “if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me” echoes a long-running apocryphal slogan tied to early 20th-century Texas and to Governor Miriam “Ma” Ferguson, but contemporary fact‑checks and historical discussion show the attribution and original wording are uncertain and likely folkloric (see PolitiFact and Language Log) [1] [2]. Multiple modern quote sites repeat Hitchens’ version, yet researchers and archival searches have failed to produce a contemporaneous, authoritative source that records Ferguson—or any specific Texas governor—uttering this precise line [3] [2].
1. The quote and its modern circulation
Christopher Hitchens’ epigram is widely reproduced on quote aggregators and book‑quote sites, which present the line as a concise anecdote about a Texas governor opposing Spanish instruction; those reproductions (Goodreads, AZQuotes, QuoteFancy, Quotosaurus) repeat the phrase but do not provide primary sourcing [3] [4] [5] [6].
2. Who is the governor in question? The Ma Ferguson connection
Most secondary accounts tie the quip to Miriam Amanda “Ma” Ferguson, governor of Texas in the 1920s, with variations such as “If the King’s English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for the children of Texas” often attributed to her in popular retellings [7] [8]. Barry Popik’s and related writeups place the line in the context of 1920s debates over teaching Spanish in Texas schools [8] [2].
3. What contemporary researchers actually find — folklore, not archival proof
Language Log and other researchers note the phrase (and closely related variants invoking St. Paul) circulated in American discourse well before Ferguson’s tenure and that no clear contemporary newspaper citation has been found verifying that Ma Ferguson ever said the Jesus/King’s English line in that form; the evidence suggests a folkloric or apocryphal origin rather than a documented gubernatorial utterance [2]. PolitiFact’s retrospective on similar “Bible was written in English” claims concludes the line is old, widely recycled, and often misattributed, noting versions were used to lampoon earlier figures, and concluding that such attributions (to Ferguson or others) lack solid documentation [1].
4. How the phrase evolved: precedents and variants
Scholars and collectors show the sentiment predates the 20th century: variants invoking St. Paul or “St. James’s Version” appear in 19th‑century critiques of Bible revisionism, demonstrating that the form of the joke existed as a stock retort long before any single governor’s alleged remark [2]. This lineage explains why similar quips reappear across decades, attached to different public figures.
5. Why the misattribution matters politically and rhetorically
The line functions rhetorically as a quick caricature of anti‑bilingual sentiment; when attached to named officials it amplifies an image of nativist or anti‑immigrant attitudes. PolitiFact treated similar modern attributions—e.g., versions tied to Michele Bachmann or contemporary Texas governors—as inaccurate or unverified, underscoring how such lines get reused to score rhetorical points even when sourcing is weak [1].
6. Limits of the available reporting and where it falls short
Available sources do not include a primary newspaper clip, speech transcript, or archival recording that definitively proves Miriam Ferguson—or any specific Texas governor—spoke Hitchens’ exact line [2] [1]. Secondary quote sites recycle the wording without citation [3] [4]. Thus definitive attribution cannot be established from the material provided.
7. Bottom line for readers and researchers
The witticism Hitchens cited is part of a long tradition of English‑only jests and anti‑bilingual sentiment that have been applied to various figures; existing scholarship and fact‑checks classify the line as apocryphal or unverified when tied to a named governor [2] [1]. Journalistic caution and archival work are required before repeating the exact attribution as historical fact, because contemporary reporting and scholarly checks fail to produce direct evidence [1] [2].