Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-22-2005, 12:41 PM

I debated what forum this belongs in. It could be CSS or MFP. I may move it if it develops along those lines.

Jefferson Bible distributed to Congress

Quote:

Not everyone is so positive about the Jefferson Bible. Ben Witherington III, a professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Lexington, KY, says that the Jefferson Bible “makes Jesus into a talking head.�?

Witherington, who agreed with Patton that Jefferson’s intent was to cull a moral code from Christianity, nonetheless said that such a document, devoid of Jesus’ miraculous and supernatural acts, is “not useful�? to politicians or anyone.

The context of Jesus’ ethics, noted Witherington, was theological. “It’s not an ethic that stands on its own. It presupposes that God is working in history, and that God is going to rectify matters�? like injustice. “When you extract the ethics from the theology,�? he added, “it has no foundation.�?

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-22-2005, 12:55 PM

I completely disagree with this guy. If the ethics can't stand on their own then they're not really meaningful anyway. Morality by Divine fiat is no less capricious or any more substantive than by human fiat. An ethical system either works or doesn't work all on it's own. "right" is not made right because God says so. If that were true then the word could have no meaning.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 02-22-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

The context of Jesus’ ethics, noted Witherington, was theological. “It’s not an ethic that stands on its own. It presupposes that God is working in history, and that God is going to rectify matters�? like injustice. “When you extract the ethics from the theology,�? he added, “it has no foundation.�?

That comment should at least eliminate the argument from ethics for the existence of Yahweh. If Christian ethics can't stand on their own even for a (presumably) Christian theologian, what hope do they have of persuading a nonbeliever?

badger3k · 02-22-2005, 05:34 PM

I personally like this line:

Quote:

Witherington, who agreed with Patton that Jefferson’s intent was to cull a moral code from Christianity, nonetheless said that such a document, devoid of Jesus’ miraculous and supernatural acts, is “not useful�? to politicians or anyone.

This is really a stupid question, especially if we are talking about politicians, but what makes ethics bad or not useful for politicians?

Ok, after the laughter dies, to continue.. why is the supernatural detritus useful? Are the politicians supposed to pray for miracles, much like we do when electing them? I agree that if the ethical or moral lessons are not able to stand on their own without the prop of magic, then they really shouldn't stand, should they?

Tthis sounds like it would be interesting to read. Seeing what Jefferson thought important might be useful in Church/state arguments, or other arguments, and it might make comparisons to other philosophies easier without having to sort through the mythology. Add it to my list, although I hope it's available online.

Just did a google search - this may be a complete copy in html, although I haven't read too far in. Angelfire

andrewcriddle · 02-23-2005, 06:46 AM

I think it depends to some extent on what Jefferson's picture of Jesus is supposed to represent.

If it represents Jefferson's selection of the parts of the Gospels he regarded as particularly relevant and valuable in the modern world, then it may as such be of value.

If however it is regarded as an attempt to reconstruct the Historical Jesus then it seems much more dubious.

In the second case Ben Witherington's criticisms are IMHO much more justified than in the first.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 02-23-2005, 11:23 AM

Your first case is definitely not the Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson was a Deist who rejected the supernatural. He cut out the parts of the NT that he disagreed with, including all of the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection, and claimed that what was left was a humanistic moral system. You could regard this as an attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus (Charlotte Allen has shown that the historical Jesus was largely a Deist creation) or just as an attempt to one-up Christians at their own game.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-22-2005, 12:55 PM	#2
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I completely disagree with this guy. If the ethics can't stand on their own then they're not really meaningful anyway. Morality by Divine fiat is no less capricious or any more substantive than by human fiat. An ethical system either works or doesn't work all on it's own. "right" is not made right because God says so. If that were true then the word could have no meaning.

02-23-2005, 06:46 AM	#5
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I think it depends to some extent on what Jefferson's picture of Jesus is supposed to represent. If it represents Jefferson's selection of the parts of the Gospels he regarded as particularly relevant and valuable in the modern world, then it may as such be of value. If however it is regarded as an attempt to reconstruct the Historical Jesus then it seems much more dubious. In the second case Ben Witherington's criticisms are IMHO much more justified than in the first. Andrew Criddle

02-23-2005, 11:23 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Your first case is definitely not the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson was a Deist who rejected the supernatural. He cut out the parts of the NT that he disagreed with, including all of the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection, and claimed that what was left was a humanistic moral system. You could regard this as an attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus (Charlotte Allen has shown that the historical Jesus was largely a Deist creation) or just as an attempt to one-up Christians at their own game.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.