How THE JEFFERSON BIBLE Might Have Changed History

January 17, 2012 by  
Filed under DailyTarcher, From the Editor's Desk.

By Tarcher/Penguin Editor in Chief, Mitch Horowitz. Republished from CNN’s Belief Blog

Imagine the following scenario: A U.S. president is discovered to be spending his spare time taking a razor to the New Testament, cutting up and re-pasting those passages of the Gospels that he considered authentic and morally true and discarding all the rest.

Gone are the virgin birth, divine healings, exorcisms and the resurrection of the dead, all of which the chief executive dismissed as “superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.”

Such an episode occurred, although the revised version of Scripture remained unseen for nearly seven decades after its abridger’s death. Thomas Jefferson intended it that way.

During most of his two terms in the White House, from 1801 to 1809, and for more than a decade afterward, Jefferson the third U.S. president and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence committed himself to a radical reinterpretation of the Gospels.

With a razor and glue brush at his side, Jefferson lined up English, French, Greek and Latin editions of Scripture and proceeded to cut up and reassemble the four Gospels into an exquisitely well-crafted, multilingual chronology of Christ’s life.

In Jefferson’s view, this revision represented a faithful record of Christ’s moral code, minus the miracles that the Enlightenment-era founder dismissed as historical mythmaking.

The book eventually became known as The Jefferson Bible and is now being rediscovered in new editions, including one published this month by Tarcher/Penguin, and as the focus of a Smithsonian exhibit.

Ask most people today if they have heard of Jefferson’s Bible and you will receive blank stares. Indeed, for much of American history, The Jefferson Bible was entirely unknown. Jefferson intended it as a work of private reflection, not a public statement.

As contemporary readers discover the work, it is tempting to wonder how American history might look different had Jefferson’s radical document come to light closer to its completion.

Jefferson was still working on his Bible during his presidency, so its theoretical publication wouldn’t have compromised his electability. But if the book had been made public after its final completion in 1820, when Jefferson had only six more years to live, it likely would have become one of the most controversial and influential religious works of early American history.

That was a scenario Jefferson took pains to avoid. After being called an “infidel” during his 1800 presidential race, Jefferson knew the calumny he could bring on himself if word spread of his “little book.” Although he had his work professionally bound, he mentioned it only to a select group of friends. Its discovery after his death came as a surprise to his family.

Jefferson’s wish for confidentiality held sway until 1895 when the Smithsonian in Washington made public his original pages, purchased from a great-granddaughter. In 1904, Congress issued a photolithograph edition and presented it for decades as a gift to new legislators, a gesture that would likely cause uproar in today’s climate of political piety.

Because of the book’s long dormancy following Jefferson’s death, and its limited availability for generations after arguably the first truly accessible edition didn’t appear until 1940 The Jefferson Bible has remained a curio of American history.

So how would the earlier publication of The Jefferson Bible have changed American history? It’s impossible to know for sure, but the 1820s inaugurated a period of tremendous spiritual experiment in America: It was the age of Mormonism, Unitarian Universalism and Shakerism, among other new faiths.

There’s little doubt that many Americans, who were already fiercely independent in matters of religion, would have seen The Jefferson Bible as the manifesto of a reformist movement call it “Jeffersonian Christianity” focused not on repentance and salvation but on earthly ethics. Such a movement could have swept America, and also have spread to Europe, where Jefferson was esteemed.

A broad awareness of Jefferson’s work would have surely engendered a more complex view of the religious identity of Jefferson and other founders. Indeed, one of Jefferson’s most trusted correspondents while he was producing his Bible was his White House predecessor, John Adams, who in turn confided to Jefferson his distrust of all religious orthodoxy. These men were impossible to pin pat religious labels on.

Because Jefferson published relatively little during his lifetime, the appearance of The Jefferson Bible would have created a different, and more confounding, public image of the statesman as someone struggling deeply with his own religious beliefs. The Jefferson that appears behind his reconstruction of Scripture is someone who brushed aside notions of miraculous intervention and canonical faith.

As The Jefferson Bible conveys, however, Jefferson considered Jesus’ moral philosophy the most finely developed in history, surpassing the ethics of both the ancient Greeks and the Hebrews. He insisted that Christ’s authentic doctrine was marked by a stark, ascetic tone that clashed with the supernatural powers attributed to him.

“In extracting the pure principles which he taught,” Jefferson wrote in 1813, “we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms. … There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”

Jefferson’s minimalist approach to the Gospels reveals an attitude that he disclosed only privately, just months before his death: “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

In that sense, Jefferson the politician wouldn’t have stood a chance in the current presidential race, where faith and piety are on constant display. The political process might be more open today to candidates of varying degrees and types of belief if The Jefferson Bible were more central to the nation’s history.

The Jefferson Bible opens a window on Jefferson’s struggle to find a faith with which he could finally come to terms. It was this kind of intimate, inner search not the outward pronouncement and establishment of religious doctrine that the man who helped shape modern religious liberty sought to protect in America.

Purchase THE JEFFERSON BIBLE on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Indiebound.

Comments

5 Responses to “How THE JEFFERSON BIBLE Might Have Changed History”
  1. William says:

    BLASPHEMY! you don’t take away or add to the bible! Also he was a traitor!

    • Anonymous says:

      Only a fool could call a seeker of truth a blasphemer and a traitor. Jefferson was the keystone to the Declaration of Independence, and could very damn well be called the Avatar of Liberty. As far as taking away from the Bible goes, keep in mind that when Rome adopted Christianity a group of old Roman men stripped out about 80% of the books to form the “Current Bible”, what they considered “acceptable”.

    • Anonymous says:

      The ENTIRE Bible has been taken away from, rearranged, rewritten, and added to. Example: New Testament. The real blasphemy is the rearrangement of sacred Jewish texts to fit a political agenda. While I believe that the Bible, does have some value, historically, and perhaps spiritually, I am VERY hesitant to actually put my faith into something that has been Copy/Pasted from Judaism, then manipulated by the early Orthodox Church, then translated out of its original language. I am a bit familiar with Hebrew, and I know that while Hebrew is extremely specific, it can also be a bit ambiguous, meaning…..I would not go so far as to trust a translator. That is ESPECIALLY true of Ancient Greek. I think it’s very important to never consider oneself a “follower” of religion. You should consider yourself a “student” of, meaning you don’t know everything, but that knowing everything about it should be your intent. QUESTION EVERYTHING. The FACTS about Christianity are this: It was decided that Christ was divine, by Orthodox bishops, in the year 325, in Nicea(Council of Nicea), and he did not claim to be divine. He is not a candidate to be the Messiah, because he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecy. While at this time I can respect his work as a prophet (I take a more Islamic view on Christ), I view his worship, or the worship of anything but 1 God, in an Abrahamic religion as blasphemy.

  2. dixon says:

    very interesting, was thinking here lately that in Christ likeness there is an inner peace to be had less the miraculous, thx

  3. trac says:

    Dearest William:
    The bible as you know it, is already extensively adulterated. there are five entire books that have been expunged since about 200 C.E., and innumerable incidental edits and incomplete insertions. There are abounding websites about these details (the five books are collectively known as the apocrypha in case you are not aware of it). So before you accuse the Roman Church of “blasphemy” you might actually want to read up on some sources other than theirs. Like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Leave a Comment

Let Us Know What You Think!