"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth"

[Katrina]

Washington, D.C. 1820

Thomas Jefferson, skeptical and muddled towards the validity and realism of the Holy Bible, was convinced that the New Testament had been corrupted within the early days of the growth in Christianity. Jefferson believed that those who strove to gain acceptance and interest towards the Christian religion, specifically the interest of the pagans, had impaired the words of Jesus within the New Testament to form a more Greek philosophical version of the original doctrine. Those who had altered the text of the Bible, were known as ‘Platonists’, because of their Plato inspired philosophical testaments, apparently added to the Bible. Many believe that the Holy Bible has been disrespected and neglected throughout the more modern times, in relation to the fact that humans are too stubborn to go back upon the original word of Jesus and present new theory towards what is scripturally and divinely correct. Jefferson had set out to discover for himself, the truth within the New Testament, and to filter out the fallacious text in between. As Jefferson puts it, he wanted to:

“Separate from that as the diamond from the dung hill.”

He soon set out to write his own version of the bible, in which, discluded such doctrine that he found to be inadequate, contradictory, and seemingly false. This version was Jefferson’s take on what, within the New Testament, was actually the word of Jesus. His words were extracted directly from the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and were written, side by side, in Greek, Latin, French, and English. The finalized version of this book, was called, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

Within the book, numerous commonly recognized aspects such as the holy trinity, the divinity of Jesus and God, miracles, important aspects from Jesus’ birth, and even his resurrection was missing. Along with his partner on idea, John Adams, he combined a whole new prospective of what Jesus was actually attempting to display through his book. This was simply ethic and moral, rather than divinity. The book did, however, incline towards a desired afterlife, and, with that, an undesired afterlife.

The book, 83 pages long, instead, portrayed a whole new character. Jesus was displayed as no other than a mortal man, fulfilled with passion, moral and wisdom. Through reading it, it was quite noticeable, the direct implication Jefferson put on towards avoiding all sin and embracing good, as well as obeying the commandments of God.

Jefferson, through his interpretation of the original Bible, had created a whole new side and character of Jesus, one that is not completely comparable to a common day perception of the character, extracted from the ‘altered’ New Testament.

The Jefferson Bible

Who was this Jesus that Jefferson had created? What do you have to say about the fallacy found within the New Testament regarding Platonic Philosophy and departure from the true words of Jesus? Has the bible, even dating back to the classical era, been altered so drastically that hundreds of pages of New Testament doctrine can be condensed down to an 83 leaf book? Thoughts?

[Dromikaites]

Jefferson decided to leave out some important phrases spoken by Jesus like the ones in which He says He is God (the "I am in father and Father is in Me" type). It's a bit difficult to claim his compilation represents the true words of Jesus if some of the true words of Jesus are left out.

One can suspect for instance Paul's interpretation of Jesus' words were influenced by the Greek pagan philosophy, given the fact Paul was not one of Jesus' disciples, that he was a Roman citizen and that he was much more educated than the 12 apostles (who can hardly be suspected of having read Plato). But if one decides to selectively quote Jesus Himself one has a big problem in convincing others ones selection represents the true teachings of Jesus.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Jefferson decided to leave out some important phrases spoken by Jesus like the ones in which He says He is God (the "I am in father and Father is in Me" type). It's a bit difficult to claim his compilation represents the true words of Jesus if some of the true words of Jesus are left out.

But you don't know for a fact if Jesus did actually preach such a thing.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Jefferson decided to leave out some important phrases spoken by Jesus like the ones in which He says He is God (the "I am in father and Father is in Me" type). It's a bit difficult to claim his compilation represents the true words of Jesus if some of the true words of Jesus are left out.

Since Jefferson was more of a Deist than a Christian he would have left this out because he considered it a later addition and not "the true words of Jesus". This is because quotes like the one you've cited, which directly support traditional Christology concerning the Trinity, are contradicted by others which definitely don't - eg "for My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). There is also a distinct lack of any quotes attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (the ones other than John) which support the idea of Jesus being God at all, when you look at them in context. All of the Synoptic quotes which Christians use to support this idea - quotes about him being "the Son of God" and "the Son of Man" - are titles referring to him being God's Messiah, not God Himself.

These complications make the process of working out what were the "true words of Jesus" highly difficult, if not impossible.

Jefferson did not, if your article is correct, consider such things as (just for instance) the Gnostic gospels, and this loses something; if he wanted to reverse the abuse of the New Testament and words of Christ he should have referred to those.

It would have been impossible for Jefferson to include anything from the Gnostic Gospels, since in his time they were only known via brief mentions in other early (anti-Gnostic) Christian writings. A text of The Gospel of Mary wasn't found until 1896 and one of The Gospel of Thomas wasn't found until 1898. Texts of the others were discovered until the Nag Hammadi finds in 1945 with the latest Gnostic gospel, Judas, only becoming available this year.

Even if he had had access to these texts, they aren't a better or even a good guide to what the historical Jesus actually said, since they are far later in date - centuries later in most cases - than the canonical gospels. Believing they are a good source of what Jesus actually said is like believing that a fake American Civil War letter written by a hoaxer last week is a good source for what happened at Gettysburg.

furthermore he must disregard later interpretation and matters like the Council of Nicea which he presumably does not given that he is using the NT as defined by that aforesaid council...

The New Testament was NOT defined at the Council of Nicea. The Canon of the New Testament was not even discussed at the Council of Nicea. The consensus as to which NT texts were 'scriptural' had been reached at least 100 years before Nicea and the Council of Nicea had precisely zero to do with this process. The whole idea that Nicea had anything at all to do with the definition of the NT canon is a common misconception with no basis in fact which has, unfortunately, been given a new lease of life in the popular consciousnes in that pathetic pseudo historical novel by that bumbling doofus, Dan Brown.

[Dromikaites]

Since Jefferson was more of a Deist than a Christian he would have left this out because he considered it a later addition and not "the true words of Jesus". This is because quotes like the one you've cited, which directly support traditional Christology concerning the Trinity, are contradicted by others which definitely don't - eg "for My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). There is also a distinct lack of any quotes attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (the ones other than John) which support the idea of Jesus being God at all, when you look at them in context. All of the Synoptic quotes which Christians use to support this idea - quotes about him being "the Son of God" and "the Son of Man" - are titles referring to him being God's Messiah, not God Himself.

These complications make the process of working out what were the "true words of Jesus" highly difficult, if not impossible.

The thing is John 14 is the place where we find also:

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].

The point I'm making is John 14 has several paragraphs stating either Jesus = Father or Jesus = Allmighty and only one stating Jesus < Father. If we are to suspect "doctoring" it's more logical to assume that John 14:28 is the "late addition" then to think the whole chapter 14 was made up around an original John 14:28. Besides the Christians have a simple explanation for John 14:28 - Jesus being also 100% human is "less perfect" than the Father.

Jefferson simply didn't have a reliable method for deciding which are the "true words of Jesus". As a result his "condensed gospel" is as reliable as any other selection, even one made by a chimp picking up gospel paragraphs from a hat.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The point I'm making is John 14 has several paragraphs stating either Jesus = Father or Jesus = Allmighty and only one stating Jesus < Father. If we are to suspect "doctoring" it's more logical to assume that John 14:28 is the "late addition" then to think the whole chapter 14 was made up around an original John 14:28. Besides the Christians have a simple explanation for John 14:28 - Jesus being also 100% human is "less perfect" than the Father.

Whereas non-Trinitarians and Deists (like Jefferson) would interpret those other passages in John 14 quite differently and regard them differently as far as "the true words of Jesus" are concerned.

Jefferson simply didn't have a reliable method for deciding which are the "true words of Jesus".

I didn't say it was "reliable", just that his method was based on his Deism.

As a result his "condensed gospel" is as reliable as any other selection, even one made by a chimp picking up gospel paragraphs from a hat.

See above. The point is that any decision on which sayings are authentic and which aren't is always going to be based on presuppositions. That includes the decision that all of the sayings are authentic, which is based on the presupposition that the Canonical Gospels are divinely inspired and so all the sayings in them are "the true words of Jesus".

[mrjesushat]

The Jefferson Bible is also sometimes referred to as the "Logion of Jesus", which is sort of funny, since logion means, "A saying of Jesus". Nevertheless, this embodies perfectly what Jefferson was seeking to do. He wanted a definitive piece of literature that portrayed Jesus accurately, without the trim and trappings of a system of faith. He stripped away what he thought was mythological nonsense, and further gave Jesus the benefit of the doubt in deciding that he was not insane. This is precisely why Jefferson considered statements in the New Testament regarding Jesus' divinity to be untrue and a-historical.

Jefferson sensed what many modern Biblical scholars sense: That Jesus was clearly a human being who lived and worked and taught an ethos for which he was willing to die. It would be unreasonable for an individual or our day and age to believe someone who claimed to be God, yet people are regularly willing to believe that Jesus was God, and further, to believe this on the basis of his ostensibly having said so. This is then supposed to be reinforced by the "fact" that Jesus performed miracles that only God would be capable of, ergo he was God. Which is totally awesome, until you go looking for actual proof of those miracles, whereupon no evidence can be produced, whereupon the whole thing collapses like any other logical fallacy.

Jefferson's methodology does not come strictly from Deism, unless one considers the application of sound reasoning a tenet of Deism. Jefferson's method is something closer to a blend of historical sense, common sense, a talent for understanding human nature, the application of logic, and the recognition that there ought to have been a Jesus, even had he never existed. And Jefferson derived from considerations along these lines a fairly solid technique for determining what Jesus said, versus what was attributed to him.

When Jesus is supposed to have claimed to be God, Jefferson reasoned that this was interpolation or the result of a twisting of what the real Jesus actually said. He decided this, because if the man had believed himself to truly be God, he would not have been entirely right in the head. This would have made it difficult for his followers and adherents to spread the faith. Jefferson further reasoned that, since no miracles could be objectively demonstrated, no miracles occured. Thus, Jesus is pared down to the more amazing* status of a regular rabbi from Nazareth, with an interest in keeping it real. This version of Jesus is startlingly similar to the Gnostic Jesus. Which begs the following question:

If a man reverse-engineers a religious text, only to have it accord with discoveries made some two centuries later, then is his project perhaps accurate? It would be a hard task indeed to invent a Jesus without some sort of realistic holy man foundation to build him on. The Gnostic-Jeffersonian correlation is provocative, at the very least.

*I say that it is more amazing for Jesus to have been a mortal man than for him to have been in some fashion divine, because the achievement of teaching people genuine peace becomes insignificant if Jesus is a god. If---on the other hand---Jesus is only a man, then his triumph lies in having made his understanding transcend his humanity.

[Dromikaites]

Whereas non-Trinitarians and Deists (like Jefferson) would interpret those other passages in John 14 quite differently and regard them differently as far as "the true words of Jesus" are concerned.

Actually I'm not sure how the non-Trinitarians would interpret the whole John 14. To me it seems they can only use John 14:28 to support their point but I'm interested to read a non-Trinitarian explanation for John 14:7, 14:9 and 14:14.

I didn't say it was "reliable", just that his method was based on his Deism.

You didn't and my comment therefore was not directed at you. I was talking about Jefferson's claim (if he ever made one) about selecting only the true words of Jesus.

See above. The point is that any decision on which sayings are authentic and which aren't is always going to be based on presuppositions. That includes the decision that all of the sayings are authentic, which is based on the presupposition that the Canonical Gospels are divinely inspired and so all the sayings in them are "the true words of Jesus".

Indeed no decision is made in total void. This is why I like the approach used for deciding which gospels are canonical: either the whole text passes or the whole text is rejected. This way one has a minimal set of presuppositions: that God Himself protected the authentic texts against tampering.

[Tom Paine]

Jefferson did not, if your article is correct, consider such things as (just for instance) the Gnostic gospels, and this loses something; if he wanted to reverse the abuse of the New Testament and words of Christ he should have referred to those. He also disregards as Drom says the claims to divinity; furthermore he must disregard later interpretation and matters like the Council of Nicea which he presumably does not given that he is using the NT as defined by that aforesaid council...

[Tom Paine]

We don't know of the accuracy of any of the gospels rendering that criticism irrelevant.

[Richard the Lionheart]

The questionable accuracy is the criticism. Thus you can't prove that the contents of the bible are "true" or even "the true word of Jesus". You can believe those things, but, you can't prove them, thus the primary criticism.

[Tom Paine]

You are criticising Drom's argument but it could as easily be applied in favour of Drom's argument and is thus a flawed critique.

[Richard the Lionheart]

You are criticising Drom's argument but it could as easily be applied in favour of Drom's argument and is thus a flawed critique.

Drom cannot prove his argument, in which he says that those are the true words of Jesus. Similarily, I cannot prove that that Jesus did not say those words. Thus, it comes down to personal beliefs.

[Tom Paine]

And therefore the whole argument is irrelevant; as we are looking at Jefferson, who assumed that Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible were all true; however he excluded certain of them and this is the matter of contention.

[Richard the Lionheart]

And therefore the whole argument is irrelevant; as we are looking at Jefferson, who assumed that Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible were all true; however he excluded certain of them and this is the matter of contention.

If Jefferson believe or assumed that then he would have included it in his own version of the Bible. Likely possibility: Jefferson, based upon his own knowledge, analysis, and opinions, ultimately labed his original assumption as wrong.

[Tom Paine]

Then he selectively choose t exclude certain things but does not seem to have had logical basis for such; or not according to what Kat has said, at any rate.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Well, looking at Kat's post:

He soon set out to write his own version of the bible, in which, discluded such doctrine that he found to be inadequate, contradictory, and seemingly false. This version was Jefferson’s take on what, within the New Testament, was actually the word of Jesus.

That directly contradicts your previous statement:

Jefferson, who assumed that Jesus' words as recorded in the Bible were all true;

[Tom Paine]

This version was Jefferson’s take on what, within the New Testament, was actually the word of Jesus. His words were extracted directly from the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

To take another quote. Directly contradicting your own. The doctrine is the interpretation; the word itself is accepted.

[Richard the Lionheart]

To take another quote. Directly contradicting your own. The doctrine is the interpretation; the word itself is accepted.

Actually it once again contradicts your own point:

This version was Jefferson’s take on what, within the New Testament, was actually the word of Jesus. His words were extracted directly from the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Therefore, it was part of "Jefferson's take" that concepts such as the trinity were inaccurate and not the true words of Jesus, thus he did not include them in his own version.

[Tom Paine]

I would disagree with your interpretation of that line of text; I would say it means Jefferson wanted t cut out all the interpretative stuff added by the 4 gospel writers and later editors.