Jump to content

Talk:Jefferson Bible

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Unreferenced, highly controversial statements

[edit]

"In essence, Thomas Jefferson, along with many other founding fathers, did not believe in Jesus's divinity, the Trinity, resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the bible"

This is such a swingeing statement, it seems highly biased. I've added a request for a reference, but to be honest I think it should be removed until it's assertions have references. 80.229.242.179 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Arguably the most notable "emancipator" was Thomas Paine. Paine argued against slavery I believe before anyone-in the Age of Reason. And Paine if anything related to christianity was ANTI-Christian (and not disputed as a Deist either). So this sweeping statement can only be assumed to be wishful thinking that hopes to attribute all good things to Christians perhaps? I cannot imagine another motive when some of the most important founders (including the most important subgroup of framers) were Deists, such as Paine, Jefferson (somewhat in dispute, but certainly NOT a christian) and Madison (quite notable since he penned most of the Constitution).Bob the Lunatic (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I mean that he was criticized in his day for being insufficiently religious but not so much for being a slaveowner, and nowadays he's criticized for being a slaveowner but not so much for being insufficiently religious. The hypocrisy has to do with championing freedom while still holding people as "property". Wahkeenah 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I find it doubly amazing that Jefferson is presently depicted as rather irreligious when he is responsible much for the success of the founding of the trans-denominational University of Virginia and the congregation held in the Congressional building and the Treasury with much of his own personal attendance despite weather and travel time that about puts me to shame. Some of many accounts can be found here at the Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html. And also: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=90
        In addition, Jefferson had the slave trade stopped, and advocated having the slaves freed while he had political adversaries that accused him of improprieties with slaves. Some of his writings concerning freeing the slaves are: "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other… And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: That his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!" Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1782) "Nothing is more certain written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers."
        Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson (1781) So those who seem to be inclined to impute the sin of slavery upon Jefferson as being utterly at fault and culpable for the whole affair sure do a disservice to the facts. It begins to sound like a bashing-the-Founding-Fathers ploy to justify some other nefarious end. In addition, indentured servitude was common where people worked off their fair for coming to America not much different than a conditional training employment contract or taking out a loan, the difference being working of your debt with one company. But you sure do not here about the "evils" of that, now do we? RTHJr (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, he did not "have the slave trade abolished". Rather, he signed into law a bill passed by Congress, prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States from outside the United States (but not other types of slave trading), from 1808 onwards -- something which had been widely expected to happen for twenty years, when the constitutional provision preventing such a ban from being enacted before 1808 expired. Jefferson spoke against slavery in his earlier years, but as he grew older he was less and less willing to make public anti-slavery statements. Second, Jefferson undoubtedly believed in God, but he was not an orthodox or theologically-mainstream Christian, and in some moods he had strong anti-clerical sentiments, and came out strongly against organized churches... AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed clarifications and good points. RTHJr (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't a christian at all-when he references "God", it is silly to assume he means Jehovah/Yahweh/Jesus/Allah. He is very clear in many places, using Deist terms-indicating clearly WHICH god. The most obvious again is in the Declaration of Independence, where he says "Nature's God". That has never been a christian term, it is a well known Deist term. He also uses the term "Great Architect"-again a deist, not christian term. So ... with that in mind, now it all makes sense-Deists DIDN'T PRAY lol, they didn't go to church. Back then, deists believed their god left after creation. With that in mind, no they were not "religious" in that regard, they had no religion to practice other than appreciating the gifts their god gave them in the way of free will and science. This is why you are having problems putting these two things together (mentions of "God" and "irreligious") you are making the mistake of assuming he thinks Jesus is god-even though the book this article is about proves that completely erroneous as a claim. Further, you are assuming whatever he is that he "worships" or interacts with his god like a christian does-again, a poor assumption when he has at the very least, strong deist tendencies that completely overshadow Jesus in the realm of religion for Jefferson. His religion (by all evidence) is Deism, which is really indeed "irreligious" and his morals could be described as "based on Jesus" (but never christ as that would contradict his beliefs and his actual god ("Nature's God"). This also rectifies all other confusing statements to the christian-like ... why did they call him an infidel in his day? (They wouldn't if he were christian lol). Why was he about the only friend Paine had left in American elitist circles after Paine came out as a christianity hater.... etc. Let's take off the christian goggles when writing about a man who wasn't a christian in any sense other than the most loose (he liked Jesus, he liked the moral code of Jesus, that's it-to Jefferson he was Jesus (thus the title of the book) and the book was clear that he was not christ in any way, nor does he once refer to Jesus as a god in anything I've ever read, yet frequently uses Deist terminology to tell us WHICH god he's talking about when he seldom mentions the word. Sorry-just getting annoyed with people trying to cram this non-christian man into a christian box, due to his historical importance, which is ironic as the US is a secular, not christian nation-again despite wishful thinking of Christians.Bob the Lunatic (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This also needs a reference:

  • was an attempt [...] to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels

I always thought the JB was his attempt to evangelise more widely to people who find "supernatural aspects" difficult 80.229.242.179 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible. So suck it, fagits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.59.91 (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "references to the Trinity [...] are also absent from the Jefferson Bible."

This statement seems to imply there are references to the Trinity in canonical Bible(s). 70.157.130.121 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson was not a hypocrite for owning slaves. His slaves were inherited, and Virginia law would not allow him to set them free, and during the brief moments it was legal to free them (the era when Washington freed his), it was still next to impossible to do so. Also, Jefferson was not anti-clerical; he just made some statements against specific clergy. He was also not against organized religion per-se so much as he was simply in favor of a non-denominational approach, hence why the University of Virginia had several seminaries, faculty from various denominations, and there was no chaplain for the first few years because the school wanted to establish a nondenominational reputation. Once the reputation was established, they began appointing chaplains and alternated between the four main denominations of the day. I just read The Jefferson Lies: Exposing Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson. It is a good book well documented with primary and secondary sources that sheds light on many topics, including the so-called Jefferson Bible. Emperor001 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jefferson Lies is full of crap. David Barton (author) is entirely clear on this; «Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods".[5][6][7][8] According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible." [9]». I'm not going to respond to anything else in that paragraph; it's all from the same unreliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because many regard him as "unreliable" does not mean that he is unreliable. I have a BA in history and this book seems trustworthy to me. One could argue that many historians have a liberal bias, therefore just to dismiss this work because of its conservative slant is POV. If wikipedia is to be NPOV then both sides, the pro-Christian and anti-Christian, must be presented, and I have done exactly that. I left the original text and simply added what others think. Also, have you even read the book? One can't really call a book full of crap unless he/she has read it. Like I said, the book came with a complete bibliography that seems reliable. Emperor001 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather amazing set of opening sentences; the opinion of professional historians is dismissible, but the opinion of some random person on the Internet who claims to have a BA in history is not. This is not a political question; this is a question of fact. There are a lot of lousy books that come with full bibliographies, and one of the standard complaints is that he consistently misquotes those works.
NPOV is not about reporting "both" sides equally (I notice you're not encouraging us to balance the pro-reptiloid and anti-reptiloid sides here); it's about neutrally reporting the reliable sources on the subject. David Barton is not a reliable source. Smearing historians as ignoring the facts because they're liberal does not solve that problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President is a book by Warren Throckmorton (and co-author Michael Coulter) taking down Barton's claims, and as you can see from his WP page, he works at a Christian college and is clearly "pro-Christian" in the sense you're using. Salon.com points out that not only could Jefferson have freed his slaves before his death, the law at his death merely required that they be removed from the state.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but in some moods he was definitely strongly anti-clerical (See the famous letter to Benjamin Rush). AnonMoos (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that I smeared them. I was just pointing out a possibility. Very well. I drop out of this debate arguing on Wikipedia is not worth my time. Remove my edits if you wish. If the author does not meet the wikipedia standards then remove him. I won't undo it this time. Emperor001 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll even admit though, now that I think about it, there were some errors in his book that I detected (though they were not of a religious nature, they were in the chapters dealing with slavery and racism). Jacksonian, pre-War Between the States, and WWII are my areas of expertise. I do recall one error in which he stated that racism in the North was the exception rather than the rule which is untrue. One of my professors in college said that the Illinois Black Code was almost a word-for-word copy of the Mississippi Slave Code, proving Barton wrong at least on that point. Emperor001 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barton's book has now been recalled for factual errors, which should put to rest any use of it as a reliable source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article starts off stating that Jefferson "excluded sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects." However, a short read though the text (it isn't long) reveals Jesus performing a supernatural healing, and talking about Heaven and Hell... especially Hell. The Google Books link given at the end of the article has an introduction which claims that Jefferson compiled this book as a "Philosophy of Jesus Extracted from the Text of the Gospels" that is, essentially, a book of Jesus' quotes, rather than actions. This doesn't jive with the explanation given in the introduction, that Jefferson wrote the bible in order to exclude supernatural sections of the entire New Testament. That sentence needs to be fixed. Furthermore, that same Google book explains that the copy Jefferson compiled for himself (in four languages) is NOT the same version that Jefferson had previously compiled for distribution to American Indians, which seems to correspond with articles on the Smithsonian website ([1] and [2]. If there is some controversy about the book(s), and history is not as simple as we've been told (surprise!), then this article needs to be upfront about the ambiguity, not merely present our preferred version and give lip service to disputes. Canute (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is uncontested that Jefferson's book includes Heaven and Hell, and that the first volume was different from the second volume. It is contested that he ever produced a volume for distribution to the Indians; the only evidence we have of that is the title, which Throckmorton & Coulter argue probably uses Indian as an allusion to Jefferson's enemies. You don't cite where it includes a supernatural healing, but Mt. 12:10ff never mentions supernatural healing in Jefferson's version.
There are controversies about many subjects that we don't dwell on, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built on reliable sources. Being 100 years old, the introduction to the volume on Google Books is questionably so; as I said in the section you replied to, Barton's book is clearly WP:FRINGE.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A few things to note: First, these statements ("not believing in divinity of Jesus") are not in dispute-this book exists, it's clear Jefferson respected the man's teachings, but scoffed and completely rejected any and ALL miracles purported by the bible. He did not believe Jesus to be a god. A note should be made of his use of Deist terms, rather than christian ones (further addressing the nature of the book this article is about), particularly in the Declaration of Independence. He mentions both Creator, and "Nature's God". The latter being a purely Deist term, thus shedding light on the former .... and of course the lack of mention of Jesus himself (quite irrelevant to creation from Jefferson's perspective).

Further-the heresy point is very false. Jefferson was commonly referred to as "The Infidel from Virginia" and "a howling atheist" by the christians of the day.

Lastly-with all this in mind, and the fact that there is ZERO evidence he believed in the divinity of Jesus, yet piles that he explicitly did not-including the fact that he created this book, editing all the divinity parts OUT.... indicates the usage of the word "christ" is completely the opposite of neutral (only a christian would write that) and completely out of place in this article, when used so casually as though "matter of fact". The whole point of this book and much of the article is that Jefferson thought he was Jesus of Nazareth, and NOT "Jesus the Christ". "Christ" should be removed as the word to describe Jesus, as it is written it completely violates both neutrality (unless a wiki author can show PROOF Jesus was christ, in which case neutrality would not be necessary - it now being a fact, that simply ran contrary to the book this article is about, which says he is most certainly NOT CHRIST).

Is this article skewed to show favor to christianity? Or is it written in neutrality to properly inform about this book? (rhetorical, currently it is the former as "christ" as a word should ONLY be mentioned on this page as a reference of what the book lacked, or firmly was lacking, or more succinctly: Christ is precisely what was edited out of this book-also so obviously noted by its original title...) The spirit of the book, and therefore the article is completely compromised by this matter of fact usage of the word "christ" as though synonymous with jesus in a fact based setting-it is the opposite in this book. Nor should Jesus, the subject of the book, be described as "the anointed one" or "the son of god" or "god in the flesh" (all synonyms of "christ") in essence, as this book is all about the man, who was certainly NOT god, according to jefferson. The extent that he went to-going through the entire bible of books to edit out every single miracle, every instance of christliness makes this point completely beyond argument. And if it is, someone should research this as there is no wild claim here, the man was not a christian other than he found Jesus to have good moral teachings. That's NOT a christian except in the most loosest meaning-where "Christ" would NOT mean "god in flesh" (impossible, it requires destroying the core of the word) and "Christian" would mean "Follower of Jesus who denies he is christ/god/god's son/etc.....

That should be cleaned up if wikipedia is objective and not promoting christianity, even in the most ridiculous places.... what is next-claiming Thomas Paine got all his ideas from the bible? I hope some antiquarians show up to fix this mess and quiet, via wikirules ridiculous whining like "calling Jefferson someone who denied the divinity of Jesus highly controversial", which is again obviously written only possibly by a christian, very ignorant of our early nation and its strongest influences (like Jefferson and Paine, Madison, Franklin, etc.... all of whom are either confirmed Deists or something between Deism & Christianity, but NEVER able to be argued as christians in an intelligent/educated setting).. Surely we can hope for more from Wikipedia-like truth? neutrality? honesty? research prior to claiming something "controversial" on a page that clearly proves the truth of it lol.... how many christians (real def.-those who believe jesus was god/christ/anointed one/etc) would take a razor to the bible, hacking out all the christ parts? Please-the existence of the book alone proves at least when written, he was no christian, explicitly denied the christ part of jesus enough to flout it with this book and many other things (including Dec. of Independence), and spent much time and effort to make that abundantly clear. Hope a neutral person with no religious/deist/atheist/ or any agenda other than TRUTH fixes this. Don't disparage a dead man in the name of Jesus or anyone please.Bob the Lunatic (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced article

[edit]

The criticisms section seems to make this article very much POV/unbalanced, particularly given the criticizer doesn't appear to have read the text given the "whatever it was he did" phrase. I recommend the inclusion of material discussing the reasons why Jefferson created this bible, and substitution of cogent criticism for the rather vapid current criticism section.--Xris0 (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title be changed to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth ?

[edit]

Shouldn't the title be the title given by the author? (99.165.193.88 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)) Good Q. WIKI:TITLE encourages to use what is the more common, popular title to make it easier for the common person to find for a topic title or description that is in common use. In addition, even though the JB is not actually a full Bible translation version, it somewhat falls within the category of a societal codes like the "Electrician's Bible", which is the NEC:National Electric Code for U.S. electricians, or the "Lawyer's Bible", which is the "Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Laws of England..." for lawyers in Common Law based countries. In the case of the JB, it is condensed moral code for a society of Christians. As it is, if anyone searches on the actual detailed title like you suggest, those people get redirected here anyway. I also believe that the title was changed to the more simple, current version as JB from prior edits.RTHJr (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Expansion by the Smithsonian National Museum of American History

[edit]

Hi there, I'm currently interning at NMAH and, in partnership with the museum's New Media, Political History, and Paper Conservation departments, I'd like to expand and edit the Jefferson Bible page. I've interned on the Jefferson Bible conservation/exhibit project team for the past year, and am eager to expand this page with the wealth of new information that is now published and public domain. The exhibit opens 11/11/11, with the release of a Smithsonian Books publication/digital facsimile and NMAH Jefferson Bible webpage which includes high resolution images of the book. The publication includes a historical chapter by the exhibit's curator, as well as a conservation chapter by the museum's senior paper conservator. These are incredible sources of contemporary facts and content, and would be a valuable addition to this Wikipage. I'll tag all of my changes and welcome any discussion about my edits. Thanks!--SarahNEmerson (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also thinking of hiding the "Bible Series" infobox on the right-hand side, as it will be even more distracting once images are incorporated into the page. Thoughts?--SarahNEmerson (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jefferson Bible Title Page.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Jefferson Bible Title Page.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

I would agree as among historical circles, it is much more commonly referred to as "the Jefferson Bible", rather than its actual title. I heard the former dozens of times, including in papers on Jefferson, prior to any reference to its actual title. This is of course one of the things that got him accused as a heretic as after all-he rewrote the bible, considered the word of God (Jehovah/Jesus in this case) by so many in his day. Perhaps the actual title should redirect to this page, which would be best titled (IMO) as "Jefferson Bible".Bob the Lunatic (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Caption: "Jefferson extracts the word 'as'..."

[edit]

The caption goes on to claim that Jefferson removed the "as" from For as in days of old... in order to improve the flow or grammar of the sentence "by avoiding three prepositions in a row." But do we actually have some sort of supporting comment from Jefferson that confirms he struck the word for purely grammatical or aesthetic reasons? The thing is, removing the "as" gives the entire sentence a less "prophetic" character. How do we know that Jefferson didn't cut out the as in order to "correct the theology", rather than for purely stylistic reasons? Throbert McGee (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "for" not "as" is a preposition in that context, anyway (according to some traditional grammatical views, "as" is never a preposition). AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also incorrect. "The" is an article not a preposition, so he's avoiding two prepositions in a row. 24.240.49.47 (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it was a request of the Indians

[edit]

Thanks for that info in your reason for the edit on Jefferson's Bible, but do you have a reference? Others such as the referenced historian disagree with that being his real purpose. Thanks. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throckmorton and Coulter's Getting Jefferson Right (ISBN 0974670693) says that "The Kaskaskia were already Catholic converts. It is inaccurate to say the federal government sent missionaries to the Kaskaskia Indians; the federal government provided limited financial support for a limited time for the support of a clergy already working with this group." And as [3] shows, the American representative who had influence on this treaty was William Henry Harrison; Jefferson merely approved it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It think there is an overeaction here, as my edits did not say or argue that TJ sent missionaries to the Kaskaskia Indians, and which i was actually careful not to say (i had also read some of Throckmortons helpful polemic against Barton), but i said that he gave (since changed to "sanctioned") financial support for a priest and church for them, but that his works here were not used to edify them, despite the title of the 1804 version . While the Indians desired the support TJ sanctioned, this does not mean TJs motive in doing so was not acculturation, as per Gaustad's understanding based on other writings. And which opinion i think could be included, though not critical in this context. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He signed a treaty that had been written and negotiated by others. I find reading much into it on Jefferson's part ridiculous. He had a treaty; he could either sign it or reject it. If he rejected it, it would take forever to get back all the ways to Illinois, and then have to be renegotiated, with Indians who probably thought this was a closed book and who might not be as flexible a second time around. He didn't find sufficient problems with the treaty to justify that. I don't see how you can extrapolate that to any particular clause.
Likewise, I find 'Jefferson supported "a perpetual mission among the Indian tribes," at least in the interest of anthropology' misleading. Throckmorton and Coulter characterized it much more as taking an existing endowment for a perpetual mission among the Indians and using it for anthropology.
Certainly if we're going to go off on tangents abound Indians here--and connecting any statements made in Notes on the State of Virginia with the Jefferson Bible is certainly OR--Throckmorton & Coulter's speculation that the "Indians" in the title were Jefferson's opponents deserves a mention.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you see as extrapolation. I just have that TJ "sanctioned financial support for a priest and church," which he did, and as Throckmorton states, "As I understand it, Jefferson did indeed favor Christian teaching for Native Americans," which still does not exclude acculturation being a motive behind that rather than their salvation. There is no attempt in my edits to infer TJ was a orthodox Christian trying to save the Indians, even in 1804, as per Barton (who argues he became anti-Christian later, being in conflict with Throckmorton), and my referenced statements that anthropology and acculturation were his reasons works against that being his motive. However, you seem driven to utterly disallow that TJ had an interest in seeing the Indians adopting Christianity for any reason.
As for 'Jefferson supported "a perpetual mission among the Indian tribes," at least in the interest of anthropology' (which the reference supports)being misleading, apparently you object to "at least," but that he did have an interest in the Indians adopting Christianity in the interest of acculturation is a view held by such as Edwin Gaustad, a Professor of History with special attention on TJ (and who stated that TJ had “an undying anxiety of anything that would bring church and state together,”) whom i think had at least as weight as psychology professor Warren Throckmorton and professor of humanities and political science Michael Coulter in their polemical writing.
In addition, Cyrus Adler, the librarian of the Smithsonian, who became aware of the existence of the "Jefferson bible"in 1895, [writes in a postscript to "the Life and morals.." that a report, Fifty-first Congress, First Session, Senate Report 1365, presented June 14, 1890, references "a bill to the proposed purchase of the manuscript papers and correspondence of Thomas Jefferson, which does not appear to have been followed by favorable action. In it the following description is given of the book in question," which was written by Ainsworth Rand Spofford (1825 – 1908), then Librarian of Congress (1864 to 1894):
"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. He used the four languages that he might have the texts in them side by side, convenient for comparison. In the book he pasted a map of the ancient world and the Holy Land, with which he studied the New Testament."
Yet this does not mean TJ's motives were all pure and virtuous.
As for "tangent," briefly mentioning TJ's support for Christian activity among the Indians, as written, is not a tangent seeing as the full title of the 1804 work that it was "for use among the Indians," which calls for an explanation as to why that title, and clarification that neither work was, which my edits supplied. Expanding this in getting into motive much, and TJ's attitude toward religion, which is complex, would be a tangent here. However, the conclusion of a psychology professor could be added, as could Spofford's above comment. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut from what?

[edit]

Only examples of English text are given, which makes me think Jefferson was cutting up a previously existing English translation. Should the article say this is so? If it is so, which of the many Bible translations into English was it? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article itself it explicitly states the following, which I think answers your question:

Using a razor, Jefferson cut and pasted his arrangement of selected verses from the King James Version[8] of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in chronological order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.238.129 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't state which edition of the King James Bible, and the reference links to an angelfire.com page. The Jefferson Bible now has its own homepage that also presents background information on the project. Perhaps the reference should be updated? Key of Now (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jefferson Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jefferson Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jefferson_Bible&oldid=1207810881"