Sunday, July 20, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

by LA Times

Thanks to SPS

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs5-2008jul05,0,7730914.story

Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith
He compiled the four Gospels into one text without miracles, ending with Jesus' burial rather than the resurrection.

Making good on a promise to a friend to summarize his views on Christianity, Thomas Jefferson set to work with scissors, snipping out every miracle and inconsistency he could find in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Then, relying on a cut-and-paste technique, he reassembled the excerpts into what he believed was a more coherent narrative and pasted them onto blank paper -- alongside translations in French, Greek and Latin.

In a letter sent from Monticello to John Adams in 1813, Jefferson said his "wee little book" of 46 pages was based on a lifetime of inquiry and reflection and contained "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

He called the book "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth." Friends dubbed it the Jefferson Bible. It remains perhaps the most comprehensive expression of what the nation's third president and principal author of the Declaration of Independence found ethically interesting about the Gospels and their depiction of Jesus.

"I have performed the operation for my own use," he continued, "by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter, which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dunghill."

The little leather-bound tome, several facsimiles of which are kept at the Huntington Library in San Marino, continues to fascinate scholars exploring the powerful and varied relationships between the Founding Fathers and the most sacred book of the Western World.

The big question now, said Lori Anne Ferrell, a professor of early modern history and literature at Claremont Graduate University, is this:

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

"He was a product of his age," said Ferrell, whose upcoming book, "The Bible and the People," includes a chapter on the Jefferson Bible. "Yet, he is the least likely person I'd want to pray with. He was more skeptical about religion than the other Founding Fathers."

In Jefferson's version of the Gospels, for example, Jesus is still wrapped in swaddling clothes after his birth in Bethlehem. But there's no angel telling shepherds watching their flocks by night that a savior has been born. Jefferson retains Jesus' crucifixion but ends the text with his burial, not with the resurrection.

Stripping miracles from the story of Jesus was among the ambitious projects of a man with a famously restless mind. At 71, he read Plato's "Republic" in the original Greek and found it lackluster.

Ever the scientist, he inoculated his wife, children and many of his slaves against smallpox with fresh pus drawn from infected domestic farm animals, according to Robert C. Ritchie, W.M. Keck Foundation director of research at the Huntington Library.

"For a lot of people, taking scissors to the Bible would be such an act of desecration they wouldn't do it," Ritchie said. "Yet, it gives a reading into Jefferson's take on the Bible, which was not as divine word put into print, but as a book that can be cut up."

Jefferson, a tall vigorous man who preferred Thucydides and Cicero to the newspapers of his day, was not the only 18th century leader who questioned traditional Christian teachings.

Like many other upper-class, educated citizens of the new republic, including George Washington, Jefferson was a deist.

Deists differed from traditional Christians by rejecting miraculous occurrences and prophecies and embracing the notion of a well-ordered universe created by a God who withdrew into detached transcendence.

Critics of the time regarded deism as an ill-conceived attempt to reconcile religion with scientific discoveries. For rationalists in the Age of Enlightenment, deism was one of many efforts to liberate humankind from what the deists viewed as superstitious beliefs.

Jefferson was a particular fan of Joseph Priestley, a scientist, ordained minister and one of Jefferson's friends. Priestley -- who discovered oxygen and invented carbonated water and the rubber eraser -- published books that infamously cast a critical eye upon biblical miracles. Jefferson was particularly fond of Preistley's comparison of the lives and teachings of Socrates and Jesus.

Discussions and letters between Jefferson and another friend, Philadelphia physician Benjamin Rush, led Jefferson to compile his "wee little book." In a letter to Rush on April 21, 1803, Jefferson said his editing experiment aimed to see whether the ethical teachings of Jesus could be separated from elements he believed were attached to Christianity over the centuries.

"To the corruption of Christianity I am indeed opposed," he wrote to Rush, "but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself."

Therefore, Ritchie said, "for Jefferson, the Bible was a book that could be made and unmade."

The Jefferson Bible remained largely unknown beyond a close circle of relatives and friends until 1904, when its publication was ordered by Congress. About 9,000 copies were issued and distributed in the Senate and the House.

Today several editions of the Jefferson Bible are available through booksellers. A few online versions exist, including one on the website of the Jefferson Monticello, www.monticello.org/library/links/jefferson.html.

It is hard to say whether Jefferson would have objected to publication of the book.

"Say nothing of my religion," Jefferson once said. "It is known to myself and my God alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life; if that has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 57 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #214367 by Robert Maynard on July 20, 2008 at 10:33 am

It will be said by some here, as it often is, that this is old news. What reason to publish it then, if I know it? :P
Catch your tongues, smartypants. If it's not new to you it's because it wasn't written just for your benefit.
I'm tired of reading people complain to let people know that they know so much. :P

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

2. Comment #214368 by PristinePanda on July 20, 2008 at 10:33 am

Too bad the link doesn't work.

Other Comments by PristinePanda

3. Comment #214370 by PristinePanda on July 20, 2008 at 10:34 am

Who's saying that? O;o

Other Comments by PristinePanda

4. Comment #214371 by Robert Maynard on July 20, 2008 at 10:38 am

No one here yet, which is why I said "it WILL be said". I pre-empted it, hopefully. :P

I keep seeing remarks like that on other articles here. When it's said on articles which have already been posted at this portal it's kind of understandable, but sometimes it's just STUFF that is interesting and people are like "Duh, geez, obviously".

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

5. Comment #214372 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 20, 2008 at 10:46 am

"Yet, he is the least likely person I'd want to pray with."

I didn't know that some religious people actually make lists of people they don't want to pray with. It would be interesting to see Pope Benedict's top 10 list.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

6. Comment #214374 by thewhitepearl on July 20, 2008 at 10:49 am

duh, geez, obviously. Old news. EVERYONE knows that.

Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?'

I can and it wouldn't be pretty. And that's simply because believers today have had "christian country" and phrases like "bringing our country back to god" pounded into their brains since birth.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

7. Comment #214376 by Cartomancer on July 20, 2008 at 10:52 am

Inspiring stuff. I might grab my pinking shears and some pritt stick and have a go with the Koran later this evening.

Actually, scratch the scissors and glue, all I'll need is an electronic shredding machine...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

8. Comment #214378 by Cartomancer on July 20, 2008 at 10:56 am

Also, presumably Jefferson had to use two copies of the bible, in case there was stuff he wanted to keep on both sides of the page. Unless early nineteenth century bibles were routinely printed on only one side of the paper...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

9. Comment #214379 by Dhamma on July 20, 2008 at 11:00 am

Jefferson wasn't a person to be put in a box, exactly.

From my very slim knowledge of him, I'd have to say I'm more than impressed every time I read something about him. Seems to have been an unmatched freethinker.

Jefferson for president!

Other Comments by Dhamma

10. Comment #214380 by D'Arcy on July 20, 2008 at 11:01 am

Maybe those US soldiers got it right in Iraq when they shot holes in the Koran. It might make more sense then.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

11. Comment #214381 by PristinePanda on July 20, 2008 at 11:01 am

In case anyone is interested, you can read a copy of The Jefferson Bible here:

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Other Comments by PristinePanda

12. Comment #214382 by mordacious1 on July 20, 2008 at 11:02 am

twp

You beat me to stating the unmentionable, this IS old news, ha ha.

I'm sure not even Jefferson would have let it be known that he did this, at least to the masses, before or during his presidency. Afterword, he probably didn't give a damn.

I was discussing with an xian the other day how we have few, if any, polymathic people around today, especially in the way Jefferson was. He thought there were many polymaths about. I don't think so, too much information out there today. I have a copy of the first Ency. Britanica and it's only 3 volumes. I could probably have memorized that. Try it with the current edition.

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #214383 by AmericanGodless on July 20, 2008 at 11:04 am

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

"He was a product of his age," said Ferrell, whose upcoming book, "The Bible and the People," includes a chapter on the Jefferson Bible. "Yet, he is the least likely person I'd want to pray with. He was more skeptical about religion than the other Founding Fathers."

Which just tells me that professor Ferrell is the least likely person I would want to hear comment upon Jefferson or his "Bible".

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

14. Comment #214384 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 20, 2008 at 11:05 am

Radesq: Of course.

My copy of the Jefferson bible has more than 100 pages. Maybe he had a bad pair of scissors.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

15. Comment #214385 by thewhitepearl on July 20, 2008 at 11:06 am

I think it is an American thing like voting for a President you would want to have a beer with.

?????

So what's the story behind the new avater?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

16. Comment #214387 by mordacious1 on July 20, 2008 at 11:08 am

Of course Jefferson probably had the slaves do all the cutting and pasting, probably ancestors of Joe Morreale.

Other Comments by mordacious1

17. Comment #214391 by rod-the-farmer on July 20, 2008 at 11:21 am

Yet, he is the least likely person I'd want to pray with

Not being familiar with the more obscure rituals of the xian church, is this a common activity ? Inviting someone to pray with you ? This seems creepy to me. Kind of like the Ori in Stargate. You have to pray publicly or we zap you with our advanced technology. And anyway, I thought the bible specifically recommended private prayer. The more I think about this, the more it sounds like mind control. Yuk. (shivers)

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

18. Comment #214392 by PristinePanda on July 20, 2008 at 11:23 am

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.
Ephesians 6:5

And here we find a biblical justification for slavery. W00T!

Other Comments by PristinePanda

19. Comment #214393 by gyokusai on July 20, 2008 at 11:23 am

Thomas Jefferson set to work with scissors, snipping out every miracle and inconsistency he could find in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John [...] "I have performed the operation for my own use," he continued, "by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter, which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dunghill."

HATE CRIME! HATE CRIME! Where is Mad Bill Donohue when we need him?

LOL
^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

20. Comment #214394 by PristinePanda on July 20, 2008 at 11:26 am

You can't imagine a president doing this today?

Well that's exactly what Bush has been doing to our constitution lately. :D

Other Comments by PristinePanda

21. Comment #214395 by Shane McKee on July 20, 2008 at 11:26 am

Funny enough, it was cutting out the texts of the gospels and laying them side-by-side that convinced me (as a then theist; I was organising a bible study on John the Baptist, and wanted to cross-check my refs) that the gospels were wrong; that Jesus's resurrection was a myth, and led directly to my atheism.

See, this is what happens when you read too much of that good book!
[Highly recommended - the gospels are fairly short, and contain all sorts of hilarious inconsistencies - and nowadays you can do it on a WP).

Other Comments by Shane McKee

22. Comment #214396 by thewhitepearl on July 20, 2008 at 11:28 am

I was discussing with an xian the other day how we have few, if any, polymathic people around today, especially in the way Jefferson was.

I agree with you. Especially in America with the standardized school system. Where memorisation is more encouraged than comprehension or the ability to think on your own. And teacher's pay students to study...Where entertainment news has more viewers than c-span or regular news. etc..

You're right, there is a great deal of expansion in the knowledge that we have now versus the knowledge they had three hundred years ago. And a lot more things today that keep people diverted from obtaining it.

[edit] If I remember Susan Jacoby correctly, it was half or more than half of the u.s citizens last year didn't read (or finish reading) ONE single book. It seems that they bought plenty but just collected dust.

Appalling

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

23. Comment #214399 by Dhamma on July 20, 2008 at 11:48 am

Could anyone advice me on a great book about Jefferson?

Mordacious: Really interesting debate you had with your friend. Considering the amount of information we do have, one would think there'd be plenty of them. But since any academic field has so much information you have to obtain, maybe it simply consummates too much time in order to be polymathic. If your in the field of e.g. physics, I'd assume you really don't have time to invest in other fields.

Other Comments by Dhamma

24. Comment #214400 by thewhitepearl on July 20, 2008 at 11:48 am

Rad,

Yeah, I presumed that Joe and clearmind/wooter/isthatclear has something to do with the change.

Mordy,

So does that mean that you would kick the crap out of Jefferson or his slaves?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

25. Comment #214404 by mordacious1 on July 20, 2008 at 11:57 am

twp

No, they didn't actually teach Joe his trade. How could they know that 200 some years later that a monster would arise. As Jefferson showed, cutting and pasting CAN be a good thing, but in the wrong hands....

Other Comments by mordacious1

26. Comment #214407 by mordacious1 on July 20, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Rad

I think you're right, although BillySands might think it's funny, since one of his links put the idea in my head to begin with.

Sometimes my jokes are directed at a targeted audience, in this case maybe too narrow (like one, me).

Other Comments by mordacious1

27. Comment #214409 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 20, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Comment #214399 by Dhamma

I enjoyed Christopher Hitchens' book on Jefferson. It is called "Thomas Jefferson - Author of America".

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

28. Comment #214410 by thewhitepearl on July 20, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Rad,

I'm a LOTR nutter myself. I thought the last avatar was a picture of you?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

29. Comment #214411 by Quine on July 20, 2008 at 12:15 pm

As a polymath, Jefferson was often ahead of those in his time. I have wondered if he anticipated that the gospels had been embellished from a simpler source as was later suggested with the Q document. It would be interesting to see the degree of match.

Other Comments by Quine

30. Comment #214422 by MPhil on July 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

The reason there are no polymaths in this day and age like there were hundreds of years ago is - rather straightforward, I think:

In DaVinci's time for example, it was still possible to know (almost) everything there was to know about anything. Physics, Biology - the whole of natural sciences was already diverse, but the amount of information was not even one percentile of what it is today.

Try learning the actual data and scientific theories even in only one discipline - physics for example. Impossible.

Of course there are still people with diverse interests, self-discipline, time on their hands and who take pleasure in learning - and they can have an above-normal knowledge of various things.

But a modern DaVinci... impossible. I bet there is not one person on this planet who knows as much about biology as the most knowledgeable biologists do AND as much about physics as the most knowledgeable physicists do. Hell, with the subdivisions of these sciences, I bet there isn't one biologist who isn't exclusively a microbiologist, or zoologist etc who knows as much about microbiology, zoology, population genetics etc as people in those fields do.

Other Comments by MPhil

31. Comment #214426 by Kubenzi on July 20, 2008 at 12:56 pm

jefferson did a cut and paste.more evidence he was ahead of his time

Other Comments by Kubenzi

32. Comment #214431 by mordacious1 on July 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

MPhil

Exactly the point I was making to this guy. I think he was trying to define a polymath as a "jack of all trades, master of none", which of course, they are not. He listed a whole bunch of names, mostly conservative thinkers (oxymoron?), but I can't think of any right now. None of them were scientists...which I think makes my point.

Other Comments by mordacious1

33. Comment #214432 by rod-the-farmer on July 20, 2008 at 1:02 pm

LOTR fans. Figures. There are probably a lot of them/us on this site. I found the first book way back in 1966 or so. Have all three extended editions on DVD within a few feet. Plus The Hobbit and The Silmarillion (I think) in book form. Several softcopy editions of LOTR. The original paperback is really worn, after about 10 or more readings. My wife and son are also now fans. None of us speak Elvish, tho'. And our honeymoon trip to NZ happened before they made the film, otherwise we would have gone to some of the places.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

34. Comment #214435 by MPhil on July 20, 2008 at 1:06 pm

mordacious

well, I guess those people who are knowledgeable in many areas (doesn't have to be natural sciences - someone who has intricate knowledge of art history, music theory and drama theory would be friggin impressive as well) are the polymaths of our days...

And when it comes to intellect - they most likely are comparable to the polymaths of past times... but when it comes to level of knowledge in different areas one individual has relative to total existing knowledge in these fields... a DaVinci is impossible today.

As for "conservative thinkers"... I don't think it has to be an oxymoron - there are brilliant people arguing brilliantly and creatively for boring and/or erroneous and/or dangerous positions.

But still - I think I see your point.

Other Comments by MPhil

35. Comment #214444 by BigJohn on July 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm

PristinePanda -- take the period off of the end of the link and it will work.

Other Comments by BigJohn

36. Comment #214461 by alovrin on July 20, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Dear Mr MPhil.
I dont suppose you could supply a link to your paper on
"Limits of Religion in a Liberal Society"
Last time I tried to look at it I couldnt get the link to work.
Thats if you want to, I would appreciate it very much

Thanks
A

Other Comments by alovrin

37. Comment #214502 by MPhil on July 20, 2008 at 2:32 pm

alovrin,

there are 2 links on my blog at the moment... worked for most people.

If it doesn't work - drop me a PM with your location and I'll try to find a free upload service in your country.

Cheers,
-Mike

Other Comments by MPhil

38. Comment #214505 by Shane McKee on July 20, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Yes, it's impossible to know as much as the experts in any particular field, but it is clearly possible (nay, advisable!) to learn *how to think*. That's the mark of the modern "polymath" (or maybe "multimath" as opposed to "oligomath").

Indeed, it's like science itself - it is not the corpus of knowledge per se; it is the process by which we sort out the pants from the Real Deal.

I was interested to hear RD converse with Alister McGrath at the Oxford Festival of Science in 2006 (sorry, lost the link), because it's clear that McGrath is relatively *eloquent*, but he does not know how to think beyond the verbal.

Ricardo: polymath
Al: oligomath (amath?!)

I don't think it's a coincidence that many people at the *very* top of their field are also highly accomplished in other fields. They really are smarter; they know *how* to think. Some of that skill is potentially teachable/learnable, I think.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

39. Comment #214508 by mordacious1 on July 20, 2008 at 2:43 pm

MPhil

I don't know. Of course, one can be impressive intellectually in the areas you mentioned, but to really know what is going on with the planet/universe, I don't see how you could avoid the natural sciences. It is like, when Richard talks about how much more beautiful things (a flower for example) are, if you can understand how they function, how they became what they are, and their purpose. When polymaths come to my mind, we talked of Jefferson and Da Vinci, they all were students of the natural sciences. To me it's part of the definition, but I might be subjectively looking at this.

Other Comments by mordacious1

40. Comment #214527 by Wosret on July 20, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I think that expert linguists impress me the most. I don't really know why, but I just find the idea of speaking a multitude of languages amazing.

I have plans to master Japanese French and Latin in my lifetime. I'm working on Japanese right now, I think I'll save Latin for last, because it is the least practicle of the three.

Other Comments by Wosret

41. Comment #214551 by Red Foot Okie on July 20, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I'm glad to see an article like this in a major newspaper like the LA Times. The optomist in my hopes that the more people who realize that,no, the founders of the US were NOT the bible thumpin' types that certain groups make them out to be, the weaker the pull to superstition will become.

Of course, the "He was a product of his age" quote kind of implies that you couldn't get away with that sort of thing in THIS age.

Other Comments by Red Foot Okie

42. Comment #214603 by JeremyH on July 20, 2008 at 4:47 pm

PristinePanda:
"You can't imagine a president doing this today?

Well that's exactly what Bush has been doing to our constitution lately. :D "

That's hilarious! I almost fell of my seat.

Other Comments by JeremyH

43. Comment #214628 by mandrellian on July 20, 2008 at 5:43 pm

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

It really isn't that hard to imagine Dubya, cross-legged on the Oval Office floor with scissors & glue and construction paper, making a little Jeebus scrapbook with Mom watching like a hawk in case he cuts himself and blames Iran ...

Anyway, isn't this cut & paste act what all "moderate" theists, theologians and apologists do anyway?

Other Comments by mandrellian

44. Comment #214681 by Border Collie on July 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Wow, just think of what Joseph Smith could have done had he been smart enough to cut and paste!

Other Comments by Border Collie

45. Comment #214841 by utelme on July 21, 2008 at 12:33 am

Wow, just think of what Joseph Smith could have done had he been smart enough to cut and paste!

I think that's precisely what he did, and then relied on the "moronis" to follow him.

Other Comments by utelme

46. Comment #214858 by PJG on July 21, 2008 at 1:31 am

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

Isn't this what ALL Christians do?

Other Comments by PJG

47. Comment #214930 by catskill on July 21, 2008 at 4:23 am

I agree we need many more articles such as this. Just last month during special order speeches in Congress one after another they came to the mike and read into the Congressional record speech after speech, declaring our nation to be founded on Christian faith. They praised the founding fathers again and again for their Christian beliefs. One representative even said that the Bible and the Declaration of Independence were the two best things ever written. Does he even realize that the author of the Declaration thought Christianity was stupid?

Other Comments by catskill

48. Comment #214953 by Wosret on July 21, 2008 at 5:37 am

One representative even said that the Bible and the Declaration of Independence were the two best things ever written.

That is often stated by people that have never actually read it.

Other Comments by Wosret

49. Comment #214957 by Stella on July 21, 2008 at 5:41 am

Another reminder of why I don't read the mainstream "news".

This isn't news. We've known about this for, oh, 200 years.

Other Comments by Stella

50. Comment #214970 by Faithhead on July 21, 2008 at 5:57 am

To pick up on what PJG said

Isn't this what ALL Christians do?

Damn right it is!!

For a lot of people, taking scissors to the Bible would be such an act of desecration they wouldn't do it," Ritchie said.

But that is in essence what every christian does. They arbitrarily chose to believe only 4 of the gospels of Jesus because a few men hundreds of years ago decided it was best. Some moderate, intelligent christians go as far as to ignore the ridiculous over the top miracles, and assign those type of events as merely parables. Whats the point!! Its the infallible word of god or not!! You dont get to chose what parts are right and which are wrong.

Its like christopher hitchens says

ask any moderate, intelligent christian do they believe in the virgin birth and you get some monty python type answer "Well its not really that simple "Its kind of metaphorical...".

Christians have been cherry picking the bible for years, at least thomas jefferson was open about it and made it clear that it needs to be done in order to have any chance of staying mildly relevent to peoples lives.

Other Comments by Faithhead

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last