Posted by Helen on: 07.08.2008 /
Benjamin (host of Off The Map’s Justice and Compassion blog) sent me an interesting article about Thomas Jefferson’s Bible.
From the article
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.”
I was intrigued to read this part
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?’ “
because I remember at least one of my pastors knew about this Bible. It came up a few times in sermons where he mentioned how wrong it is to do what Jefferson did: take scissors to the Bible and cut out the parts you don’t like.
I wouldn’t take scissors to a book. I don’t even like writing in books! Conceptually I wouldn’t have done this to the Bible for years but now I appreciate the freedom of those who think critically about what’s in it. And I appreciate the honesty of those who say “I don’t believe these parts of the Bible”.
Some Christians who say they believe the whole Bible nevertheless use systems of interpretation to constrain its meaning and dismiss any parts that don’t fit their system. How is this conceptually different from cutting those parts out with scissors? Those Christians may as well have cut Mark 10:21-25 and Matthew 25:31-46 out of their Bibles because they don’t take seriously the issues those passages raise.
I like the end of the article
“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.”
I like what he’s saying here: that we shouldn’t need to discuss our beliefs because our lives will show what we believe; and if we live good lives our beliefs can’t be far wrong.
That’s my view too.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
1 07/8/08 7:57 AM | Comment Link |All Christians do the very same thing Jefferson did. They just do it in their heads and then deny doing it when pressed
Comment by: Leo
2 07/8/08 8:11 AM | Comment Link |Am I close in stating “Start DOING what you say…not saying what you are going to do.”
Maybe one day we Christians might start doing more than saying…and who cares if our actions say anything at all! We should not do things to look good or make statements - we need to do because we love others.
Comment by: Jason Horton
3 07/8/08 9:35 AM | Comment Link |Jefferson is my American President hero. Him and Millard Fillmore, but only because good plumbing is vitally important to good government.
I’d encourage any Christian (Muslim\Jew\seeker\curious reader, etc) to cherry pick their bible. Take from it what works and makes you a better person and discard the rest. Alternatively let God be your judge, the sentiment is the same. Many atheists that I’ve talked to have lost their faith through reading the bible. They were unable to reconcile the genocidal, homophobic, sexist stuff with the loving, sharing, compassionate stuff and so rejected the whole thing.
If you’re going to reject religion then you should do it for a good reason, not just because you don’t like some of it. I think the reverse also hold true.
Anyway, I don’t know how long Jefferson’s original bible was but to end up with 46 pages I’d guess that he must have cut out 90% of it. I’d be interested in see what he left in.
Comment by: Jim J
4 07/8/08 12:36 PM | Comment Link |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.”
I wonder who “offered it to man”? I’ve always thought Jefferson’s buffet Christianity work was contradictory. I think it’s best to try to work through the difficult parts of the Bible rather than to give in to juxtaposing your own prejuidices onto it. I’ve found the former to be extremely rewarding.
Comment by: David H
5 07/8/08 4:47 PM | Comment Link |Jefferson’s Bible is made up exclusively of the redacted and re-arranged gospels. Find a table of texts uses (in the order he set them) here.
Jefferson believed nothing outside the life and words of Christ should be considered, but considered much of the gospels to be superstitious nonsense. I have many mixed feelings about his approach. First, I think a good many Christians would do well to put away their whole-book Bible and take up his. It focuses on the core issues of what Jesus believed, what he did and what he asked of his followers. It leaves out almost everything that serves to distract modern “Christians” from being like Jesus.
On the other hand, I don’t appreciate his decision that everything outside the moral teachings of Jesus was propaganda or poppycock. Jefferson throws out the entire concept of miracles because the violate his understanding of science. Therefore they did not and could not have happened. That seems a bit narrow to me.
Perhaps that is the best way to look at Jefferson’s entire concept. It is narrow, but not in a bad way. To say it is contradictory is to discount the words in it — which are almost entirely the words attributed to Jesus. Considering where the flat-book approach to the Bible has left modern Christianity, maybe narrow isn’t so bad as a point for beginning again.
Two asides:
1. The short-live TV show “Firefly” had a apparently Christian missionary in space as a main character. He is a largely sympathetic character. In one episode one of the other characters starts chopping up his Bible to get rid of all the unbelievable parts. My daughters love that show. So that was a good jumping off place for a discussion of difficult parts of the Bible.
2. While Jefferson’s Bible may not be contradictory, the man himself was (perhaps morally and socially schizophrenic would be a better term). Historian Joseph Ellis, in his book “Founding Brothers,” writes of Jefferson’s contradictory nature. Ellis notes that Jefferson was an intellectual idealist who lived politically as a realist. Thus he would propound high standards in how people should deal with each other, then stab close friends in the back in support of his party or policies. Ellis marvels that Jefferson appeared completely unaware that what he thought and did were often diametrically at odds. In the book he details how Jefferson’s strange nature destroyed his relationship with John Adams and, at times, threatened the young United States of America. Great book. I highly recommend.
Comment by: benjamin ady
6 07/8/08 7:38 PM | Comment Link |Jason, I’m trying to work out what the reverse is. Can you help?
David–what is the “flat-book approach to the Bible”?
Comment by: David H
7 07/8/08 7:44 PM | Comment Link |Flat-book approach to the Bible is that everything in it is the same, nothing has priority, all is true, from God, etc. etc. Believers of this will counter apparent non-violent teachings from Jesus by pointing to how God dealt with Philistines in the OT. They will say each holds equal weight because they are both in the Bible.
Jefferson basically threw out everything in the Bible except the gospels. Then he threw out most of the gospels.
Comment by: Jason Horton
8 07/8/08 10:10 PM | Comment Link |Sure, if you are going to adopt religion then you should do it for a good reason (it helps others, builds communities, etc) rather than because you like a sound bite or your parents did it.
Comment by: benjamin ady
9 07/9/08 1:25 AM | Comment Link |David,
aha. I grew up with the flat book approach. But it stopped working. It was as if I were in Oz, and I decided to take off the damn glasses one day, and things looked so much more … natural, with them off, I don’t guess I could ever cope with wearing them again. (ok, it wasn’t just one day–that’s oversimplified. but you understand me, I hope)
Jason–thank you for that clarification.
It’s weird for me, here in that sort of halfway atheist place. I don’t really want to “reject” religion outright–”reject” seems such an absolute word. Can I do the same thing with religion as with the Bible, and throw out the flat book approach–take what works, chuck the rest? I guess that’s what Jefferson was doing, only a lot more methodically than me.
Comment by: Helen
10 07/9/08 6:09 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comments, everyone.
Am I close in stating “Start DOING what you say…not saying what you are going to do.”
Leo wrote:
Leo I really like your emphasis on doing.
Comment by: Helen
11 07/9/08 6:17 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin I responded to a question in your comment here: Conservative Christians and permission
(Maybe you were wondering rather than asking permission but, people do ask permission and that’s what got me thinking)
Comment by: karen
12 07/9/08 1:22 PM | Comment Link |David H:
Hey! One of my favorite TV shows of all time. Of course, I love all things Whedon (he has a new show coming this fall staring Eliza Dushku, FYI).
The missionary in question’s name was “Shepherd Book,” quite fittingly. I loved that scene where River cuts up his bible and I’m sure it was a deliberate reference to the Jefferson Bible. Whedon is an atheist and often makes thoughtful points about belief, disbelief, religions, etc in his shows. Just one reason I think he’s an absolute genius.
Comment by: Pops
13 07/13/08 4:06 AM | Comment Link |Not too sure I go with this. I know a lot of people who lead very ‘good lives’ but who are not christian at all, in fact some are even atheists! So from my christian perspective, I would find their beliefs, or non beliefs not right (or in agreement with mine should I say?)
Jeff’s position is pretty good for a start up believer and maybe someone should come up with a Bible version that gives the basics only for new believers?
Give them that sort of intro and after a year or two get them into a full version once we have had chance to expound the background etc to them, so that they are not confused by the whole thing all at once.
If you only work with a short version then there is no room for God to lead you in other things, or to use His Word to show you past examples.
Any how, His Word is a person not just a book, now how do you cut off the parts you don’t like (no sarcastic comments please ladies!)and keep the parts you do like? But is that not how you get to know a person as you build up a relationship with them? Getting to know them bit by bit?
Lots of love!
Pops
Comment by: Helen
14 07/13/08 5:09 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment Pops.
I’m not surprised you disagree - I realize that many Christians separate belief and behavior.
Since he’s God he has the whole world to use to teach people things - I expect he could work around this.
I don’t know how to have a relationship with a person I can’t see, hear or touch, if that’s what you’re talking about.
Comment by: Pops
15 07/13/08 10:48 AM | Comment Link |Not what I am getting at. From a Christian perspective, despite the good deeds muslims (for example) people do, I still find their beliefs to be ‘wrong’.
I do not think that Christians should have different beliefs to actions. If they do not act on what they believe, they are going to have to answer for that.
Then there is the aspect of ‘belief’ versus ‘head knowledge’. If you truly believed in something, then it is pretty obvious that you would structure your life around it, or at least try to, but at least others would be able to see that you are making an effort.
Head knowledge, well, that is all it is: I know something but it has no impact on my life.
I agree, He could. But in my opinion, He is not going to do something different for one person who chooses to take short cuts on an indefinite basis.
I do. Sure that is subjective, but that is faith. But so what, a lot of things in life are subjective!
At some point/s in time, one has an opportunity make a decision to either give it a go or not - if we wait until we understand everything, well then at that stage God becomes a non issue doesn’t He?
Also, your western culture is a bitch! Come live here in Africa for a while. Take a tour round the witch doctors and shamans, see things happen that you think only exist in Holywood - then let’s talk about rationalising everything.
Lot’s of politeness (I hope)!
Pops
Comment by: Helen
16 07/16/08 6:49 AM | Comment Link |Pops wrote:
I’d probably say I think it’s just a coincidence then you’d be annoyed with me for rationalizing and wonder if you really did love me after all :)
Comment by: Pops
17 07/17/08 9:29 AM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
Hehehe, conincidence! You should really get over here and see for your self! When we live in a first world country with all the mod cons it is easy to dismiss things as showmanship, coincidence etc. but when you see things actually go on in front of your very own eyes, it rattles your cage of ideas a whole bunch!
ROFL, I dont care if you insult me straight out - Lots of love!
Pops
Comment by: Helen
18 07/17/08 7:46 PM | Comment Link |Pops I’ll do my best not to insult you straight out!
Comment by: Eliza
19 07/18/08 7:42 PM | Comment Link |I imagine that Jefferson actually had to cut up TWO Bibles to make his cut-and-paste version, since Bibles have print on both sides of the pages (at least the ones I’ve seen), & he didn’t have a Xerox machine…
Comment by: Helen
20 07/21/08 5:09 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, good point :) I love that you thought of that!