Talk:Jefferson Bible

/Archive 1

Page Expansion by the Smithsonian National Museum of American History

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)

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)

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

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)

Unreferenced, highly controversial statements

"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)

• As I recall from reading about it long ago, he was accused of those "heresies", but he denied those accusations. Wahkeenah 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have the reference Wahkeenah, that might help clear this up 80.229.242.179 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It was probably something on the History Channel. Wahkeenah 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• It says something about the evolution of American society, though, that he would get complaints about alleged agnosticism in his day, while his hypocritical ownership of slaves was apparently not seriously questioned; and nowadays, it's pretty much the other way around. Wahkeenah 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not 100% sure how agnosticism & slave ownership are hypocritical - all the important emancipators were Christians I think
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

Thank you for the detailed clarifications and good points. RTHJr (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

• "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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unbalanced article

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)

• I've removed the random POV talking points. They added undue weight to negate the essence of the descriptor article itself and were clearly set at bias. Neutralis (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Jefferson Bible Title Page.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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. 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)

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

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)

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)