Talk:Jefferson Bible/Archive 1

Archive 1

Much of the article seems to have been lifted directly from the following website: http://www.padfield.com/1994/jeff.html

Besides being a likely copyright issue, the text is rather POV. I'm going to try to rewrite this article from more sources. Jonathunder 15:46, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

There is a little bit about Jefferson creating his Bible here [1]. It is an interesting image of him literally cutting up the Bible and then pasting what he thought were the most important passages into a blank book. Here are also the ISBNs for the hardcover (ISBN 0807077143) and paperback (ISBN 1888451629) Editions. The book "Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels: The Philosophy of Jesus and the Life and Morals of Jesus (The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Second Ser.)" by Dickinson W. Adams (ISBN 0691102104) from Princeton Univ. Press is described as "definitive edition of the 'Jefferson Bible'".

The Library of Congress also has some interesting stuff, including copies of the first three handwritten index pages for the Jefferson Bible [2]. It would be great to include one of these pages in the Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the copyright info is very unclear (at least to me) [3]. It looks like the facimiles are at the Smithsonian, but I am assuming that the photos were taken by the LOC, which I think makes them in the public domain.

I found an interesting & fairly dispassionate view on the Jefferson Bible on a Catholic website [4]. For a much more negative view on Jefferson & his Bible from the same website, see [5].

It looks like there is plenty of stuff on the internet to help turn this article into a much better one, but I am going to have to take some time digesting it all, and then figuring out a good way to present it (and keep an NPOV). [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 08:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work, GK. Those look like good sources. Jonathunder 17:10, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Criticism Section Removed

Back in January, the Criticism section was anonymously removed, apparently without discussion. Since it looks like vandalism, I'm going to undo the change. If you disagree, I would prefer to improve the section (it is a little weak), rather than remove it. VidGa (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Was / Was Not a Deist?

According to his 5th g-grandson who has been doing reeinactments of his ancestor in period costume since National Graphic found him on the Bicentinneal of this nation [1976] and pointed out how "haunting similar" the ancestor and descendant (R.C.) are -- Jefferson was a deist. I have known RC and his familyu all of my life, grew up with him in Virginia. My ancestor, Rev James Maury (See TJ's autobiography) taught TJ for two years after Peter Jefferson died and it has always been stated that "TJ" was a deist.--Maury

---

While it is a common practice to label Jefferson a Deist these days, it becomes quite clear that he never identified himself as a Deist, and, in fact, called himself a Christian. In fact, one would wonder, if Jefferson was a Deist, why he would use a Bible, present it to the Native Americans as an introduction to Christ, and also provide at government expense Christian missionaries to the Native Americans. Instead of continuing the editorial battle, I decided to make the case here. Below are the edits I would like to add that are actually historically accurate and are counter to what the "Deist" editor claims:

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life And Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted textually from the Gospels as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. A Christian, Jefferson wished to extract the doctrines and philosophy of Jesus as a primer and introduction to Christ for the Native Americans. While some have attempted to label Jefferson a Deist, in a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a sociological perspective. If one defines the term "Deist" broadly enough, then the writing of nearly every U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a "Deist," so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful.

Also, under "Purpose and Use" I propose the following as any amount of research or reading about Jefferson, including his communiques with the Danbury Baptist Association would indicate that he did not believe faith was a "private matter," but that he certainly did not want his detractors to have ought to say against him in regard to his faith:

After completion of the "Life and Morals", Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never let it be published during his lifetime. His reluctance appears to be based upon his desire to avoid slander and criticism. mikbry24

Jefferson was not very public with his religious views, but he did reveal more in his private correspondence. Luckily much of that has been preserved and a good percentage of it is available on the internet. If you have a citation for where he says that his selective condensation of the Bible was intended as a primer for Native Americans, please provide it. ^BlankVerse 12:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about looking at the introduction of the book itself? I suppose that is the best place to start....

"The Morals and Life of Jesus of Nazareth,' extracted textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English. Title and very full index in his own hand. Texts were cut by him out of printed copies of Greek, Latin, French and English Testaments and pasted in this book of blank pages, which was handsomely bound in red morocco, ornamented in gilt, and titled on the back in gilt letters, `The Morals of Jesus.' His original idea was to have the life and teachings of the Saviour, told in similar excerpts, prepared for the Indians, thinking this simple form would suit them best. But, abandoning this, the formal execution of his plan took the shape above described, which was for his individual use."

This quote taken from page 9 of the introduction to "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" You can find an electronic version at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-reldem?id=JefJesu.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all mikbry24 08:50, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, the use of "Saviour" and the fact he would want to introduce Jesus Christ to the Indians would not be something a Deist would do....correct? What would be the use of introducing Christ and His morals to the Indians if you were a Deist? mikbry24 09:50, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

The two instances in your reference that suggest the purpose of the condensation was for use by Indians are from Jefferson's grandchildren long after his death.

If you look at his own writings, such as the letter to To John Adams on October 13, 1813 (you can read it here), he states very clearly (my emphasis) "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."

As for Jefferson being a Christian, here again are his own words [6] (my emphasis): " To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed ; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself [Jesus] every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." To Doctor Benjamin Rush, Washington, April 21, 1803. ^BlankVerse 16:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

First - Okay, so your reference above makes Jefferson a Deist? Explain how, in your mind, the quote you've cited above makes Jefferson a Deist.

Second - This entry in Wikipedia is about The Jefferson Bible, known as "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." In the very introduction of the book this entry is supposed to be about we have the words referenced above, "His original idea was to have the life and teachings of the Saviour, told in similar excerpts, prepared for the Indians" and you are simply going to ignore them? And then, your defense is that his very own Grandchildren believed this, but that we are supposed to take someone else's word here in our own century that he was a Deist? That reasoning is a little muddy, don't you think? mikbry24 11:22, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the entirety of that portion of the letter to Adams reads, "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 result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians of the first century. Again, the letter to which you are referring connotes Christianity and Jefferson's desire to stay as true to the early Church believers in his doctrine as possible. I ask again, how does this make Jefferson a Deist? mikbry24 11:38, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

adherents.com has this to say, "In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a "Deist" with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a sociological perspective. If one defines the term "Deist" broadly enough, then the writing of nearly every U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a "Deist," so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful." mikbry24 11:45, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the Jefferson Bible. The preface that you are so concerned about quoting was something added on 3/4 of a century after his death. As for him wanting to convert anyone, let alone Indians, he has said: " I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed." To Mrs. Samuel H. Smith Monticello, August 6, 1816

As for your emphasis in the larger quote, read ALL of the letter. It is obvious that by doctrine, he is referring to Jesus' moral code, and not any specific religious doctrine.

As for him not being a deist, what else could he be. If you read through his letters, he is strongly anti-Calvinist, anti-Trinitarianism, anti-miracles and anti-predestination. He also did not believe in the divinity of Christ. "That there is one only God, and He [is] all perfect." He also speaks about how Jesus reformed the deism of the Jews.

He described in one letter how he felt closest to Unitarianism, and also said in another letter he said "The population of my neighborhood is too slender, and is too much divided into other sects to maintain any one preacher well. I must therefore be contented with being a Unitarian by myself." The Unitarian Church when he was alive was somewhere between the Deist version of today and a very liberal Protestant denomination.

Jefferson's enemies tried to pin many different labels on him, including atheist and deist, but he rejected any labeling. Still, as I've pointed out, his personal philosophy was closest to the nascent Unitarian Church of his day, which was still considered a Christian church at that time. Judged by the Catholic standards of any era, or judged by the born-again conservative evangelical Christian standards of today, many would consider his beliefs not Christian if he were alive today.

So what should we call Jefferson. I would be satisfied with "liberal Protestant" instead of "Deist", but I will not agree to a description of him as only a "Christian" without any qualifications. ^BlankVerse 18:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly you were quite willing to agree to a description of him as only a "Deist" without any qualifications. In any case, if you want to qualify his stances further I certainly wouldn't be against that. Perhaps calling him a Protestant is the best. Certainly "Christian" is more fitting than "Deist," even if you feel you must qualify it, since he, himself stated that he considered himself a "Christian." Again, let Christians disagree as they will, but there's no need to call him something that he never claimed to be, when he, himself used the terminology of "Christian" in describing his beliefs. ^mikbry24 13:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think that Deist, without any qualifications, is the best description for Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs. Go read what it says in the Thomas Jefferson article, for example.

Jefferson rejected the Trinity, Christ's divinity, that Christ performed miracles, and even Christ's resurrection. Is that a "Christian"? Those are positions that are antithetical to almost every Chritian denomination.

As for Jefferson considering himself a Christian. Go reread the entire letter where he says "I am a Christian" and the other letters where he discusses the creation of the Jefferson Bible. What he says is that he is a follower of a very human teacher of a moral code, and that he rejects everything in the Bible that he doesn't consider the true words of Jesus Christ (in other words, all of the New Testament except for the selected parts of the four Gospels that became the Jefferson Bible). He is equally dismissive of the Old Testament. Again, I have to ask, are those the beliefs of a Christian as the word is most commonly used? Your quote from adherents.com works equally well if you replace "Deist" with "Christian". ^BlankVerse 22:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original author. In the Jefferson bible and the quote that BlankVerse refers to Jefferson said that most Christians are hypocrites and do not follow the moral teachings of the bible and are quick to point the finger at others. This does not mean he was not a Christian. This is how I interpret the quote and it makes sense given how his opponents would attack him. Christians attack Christians all the time it doesnt mean anything. But one thing I do know is that Jefferson shouldnt be described as 100 percent deist. There is just way too much information that would suggest otherwise. If anything saying that people consider him a deist and Christian is generous at best.

Jerry Jones 08:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not disagree with calling Thomas Jefferson a Deist, but I would disagree with calling him a Christian. He did not believe Jesus was anything more than a wise man, he didn't believe him to be the son of God, he didn't believe in his miracles. He did lean toward Unitarianism, but many would not call that Christianity anymore. Perhaps "Freethinker" would be a better compromise; Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian.Rt66lt 19:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there is confusion to the reader by either using the unqualified term "Deist" or "Christian." "Deist" creates confusion because it implies that Jefferson called himself a deist, of which I know of no evidence. Rather, deism is ascribed to Jefferson based on his views. Calling Jefferson a "Christian" is misleading to the reader as well, as it implies that Jefferson held views which he explicitly denied, namely the divinity of Christ, the miracles of Christ, and the Resurection. Therefore I would like to recommend simply striking the words "A deist" from the first paragraph as well as the link in See Also. This page does not need to attempt to catagorize Jefferson; his primary entry already does a much better job of it and is the correct place for the explanation. It needs only to explain his purpose in creating this Gospel excerpt, which I think it does well without reference to Deism (which is in no other way referenced here). Rnapier 02:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson was a deist in truth, sometimes a conotative theist rhetorically (I tremble for my county...I have sworn upon the altar of god-these are contrasted by the more deistic-Those who labour in the Earth...Natures god entitle them), and, in his own way, a secular christian phlisophically. Consequently, he is very easy to misportray in these matters.-Jared

Deist

Beyond doubt, he was not a Christian. He labelled himself a Christian on the basis that he was a follower of Jesus, but the definition of "Christian" does not fit him at all. He called himself Christian defining "Christian" as a "a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus", but the definition of "Christian" entails much more. Were "Jesusian" a fashionable term, it would of been a better fit, as his definition of "Christian" does not even make "Christians" necessarily religious.

I agree that "Deist" does not fit him perfectly, as we do not know the whole of his beliefs, but it is fair to assume he was. However, because Wikipedia is not a place for assumptions, it is best not to label his beliefs. --67.68.31.143 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus, if he called himself a Christian, then we must go therefore and do likewise. Wahkeenah 18:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Claim about early Mark manuscripts

I've removed the following claim:

There is no mention of the resurrection, just like in the earliest manuscripts of Mark.

This is not the scholarly consensus on Mark (and let's not appeal to imaginary manuscripts here). I'm certain the editor that added this claim was thinking about Mark 16:9-20, but this covers post-resurrection appearances, not the resurrection itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Collard (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Would someone post the integral text on Wikibooks?

If you have the time of course. It'd be appreciated.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a request on Wikisource. --Bkkbrad 22:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)