The Jewish nation had a long history of being subjected to powerful foreign governments. Its people occupied a strip of land which was the corridor of communication and also a buffer state between much larger and more powerful nations to the north and south. As early as 720 B.C. the northern kingdom of Israel was overthrown by the Assyrian King Sargon II who carried a large proportion of the people captive into Mesopotamia. In 586 B.C. Jerusalem was destroyed and the people deported to Babylon by Nebucadnezzar. In 332 B.C. they submitted to Alexander the Great. In 320 B.C. they were subdued by the king of Egypt, and in 198 B.C. were taken by the king of Syria. There followed a period when they became free of foreign powers and were able to rule their own land under the leadership of the Maccabees. When Pompey came and captured Jerusalem for Rome in 63 B.C. it must have seemed that self government had hardly been established before yet another powerful foreign nation had subdued them and demanded taxes.

The Jewish nation continued to be rebellious while under Roman rule. All of Judea longed for the Messiah, promised by their prophets, who was to come and deliver the nation from all its enemies. Jesus was not the first to claim to be that Messiah, the others had been quickly put down by the Romans who" would brook no such opposition. It is interesting that there is almost no reference to Jesus in historical records other than the New Testament, just the bare statement that a person called Jesus, was crucified by the Romans. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in the early years of the second century about the persecution of the Christians by Nero, says

"Christus the founder of the name had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself."

No original manuscripts of the New Testament have survived. It is generally believed by Biblical scholars that the original documents were written in Greek or Aramaic about 50 to 100 A.D. The first portions were translated into Latin and Syrian about 150 A.D. The most famous translation into Latin is called the "Vulgate" and was completed by St. Jerome in 385 A.D. We can only speculate as to how accurately these early translations followed the original events. So we see firstly that there was a big gap between the time when Jesus was crucified and the first account of the story of Jesus was written, and secondly there was an even bigger gap between the original writings and our oldest translations.

Jesus did not leave any written record of his teaching. It now seems evident that neither did any of his disciples. The earliest records were written by Paul many years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Nor do we have Paul's original manuscripts. Paul had not

known Jesus in the flesh and showed very little interest in the story of his life, except for his death and supposed resurrection. Janis Saunders in "Frontiers of Aquarius" tells us that Paul's writings occurred between 50 and 62 A.D. and the Gospels between 65 and 100 A.D. Lloyd Geering puts the writing of the Gospels as thirty five years or more after the death of Jesus. Whatever date you accept, the gap in time between the death of Jesus and the first recordings was considerable.

The New Testament scriptures were not recorded immediately. They were undesigned and unforeseen because the Jewish Christians were expecting the physical return of Jesus as the reigning Messiah to occur at any moment. By the end of the second century the need for a sacred text was apparent, but not until the fourth century was it firmly set down. The full recognition of the Gospels and epistles was achieved because of the pressure of heretical movements. The texts were selected and given church authority in 367 A.D. and were finally ratified by Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth century.

So the New Testament was written by second and third generation Christians well after the life and times of Jesus. The modern Biblical text has been translated from translations of still earlier translations. We can never know for certain how accurate the present-day recorded stories and teachings of Jesus are. There are four gospels, each purporting to give an accurate account of the life of Jesus, but they all differ and sometimes markedly so.

World-wide interest was drawn to the discovery, in 1947, of ancient Hebrew texts which had been deposited about the time of Jesus. An Arab lad had lost a goat and while searching for it, discovered a cave which contained several large cylindrical pots. He ran back to his camp and told an elder, who went to investigate. In the third pot they found something wrapped in old cloth which they took back to their camp. Underneath the cloth exterior they discovered a scroll of smooth brown leather which stretched from one end of their tent to the other. After an uncertain beginning, parts of the scroll came into the possession of Professor E.Y.Siikenik of the Hebrew University, who realised that they were parts of an ancient Hebrew manuscript, possibly from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

This raised the hopes and expectations of world Christendom for confirmation of the Biblical story of Jesus. As the years have gone by and the tremendous task of slowly piecing the manuscripts together has proceeded, Christians seem to have given up hope of any historical confirmation of their faith which now seems very unlikely to come from the scrolls. One thing the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown is the strength of sectarianism which existed among the Jews at the time of the Roman occupation and the persistent activity of the resistance fighters, known as Zealots, within the country.

From the discovery we learn that the religious sect of the Essenes had established a theological centre at a place called Qumran which bordered the Dead Sea. Final discovery showed that their library contained some 600 scrolls, including some copies of parts of the Old Testament which predated those from which the Bible had been translated.

At the time of Jesus, the Jewish nation was split by fanatical religious sects and political nationalism. No wonder the people were longing for the promised Messiah to come and deliver them from all their troubles. The Zealots fought a fierce battle against Rome, joined their forces with the Essenes, who hid their manuscripts in the caves, and died together with them in a mass suicide at Masada in 73 A.D.

The teaching of the Essenes has a strong similarity to that presented in the Gospels. In other words, much of the general philosophical teaching found in the Gospels was a repetition of the kind of teaching which predated and was current during the time of Jesus. It represented the philosophical teaching of the time.

Mark's gospel is believed to be the first gospel to have been written by a member of the Christian church which had been established in Rome. The Christian church in Rome was under considerable strain and understandably embarrassed by the fact that Jesus had been crucified by Pontius Pilate on a charge of sedition. Mark, a Christian, took on the responsibility of writing the story of Jesus. It is interesting that Mark makes the political move of shifting the blame for the death of Jesus away from the Roman governor onto the Jewish priests. The other gospels, written later, take up and follow the same line of reasoning. S.G.F Brandon presents a convincing argument in "Religion in Ancient History".

But was Jesus guilty of sedition from the Roman point of view? A little while previous to his trial, he had ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey and "A very great multitude spread their garments in the way;...And the multitudes that went before and that followed, cried saying, Hosanna to the son of David;

blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord;

Hosanna in the highest" (Matt. 21:8-9). Jesus then went to the temple and proceeded to "cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers". Luke records that when Jesus came down from the Mount of Olives with the multitude, they began to cry out and say, "Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord." It is certain that the Romans would have heard of such a public commotion and the claim of his kingship. All the gospels state that Pilate asked Jesus if he was the king of the Jews and he replied "thou sayest it". Remember what the Romans wrote on the inscription placed over the crucifixion cross in Greek, Latin and Hebrew: "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS." Surely that was a message to the people that Rome would stand for no messiah purporting to be god's appointed ruler of the Jews.

The gospel of Luke was written about twenty years after Mark's record. He described one of Jesus' disciples, Simon, as "the Zealot" (Luke 6:15; also Acts 1:13). Now the Zealots were the extreme nationalistic party who were in constant revolt against foreign rulers. They are recorded at length in the various histories of the time including the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this connection it is interesting to note that Jesus' disciples sometimes carried swords. (Luke 22:36) records Jesus saying "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one,.... And they said. Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them. It is enough." Each of the four gospels record the arrest of Jesus and the use of a sword. "Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. And the servant's name was Malchus" (John 18:10).

Jesus was attracting large numbers of followers who referred to him as "the King who cometh in the name of the Lord". He and his disciples had organised a triumphant messianic entry into Jerusalem, then attacked the religious establishment at the temple which sought to pacify Rome. When arrested his disciples had swords and had used one in the heat of the moment. The Romans were not gentle with anyone who threatened their position of authority. And this was not the first time they had disposed of a would-be messiah or members of the Zealot organization. Roman justice could be immediate and ruthless. It is hard to believe that Pilate, who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus, "found no fault in him" and would have let him go free if the Jewish priests had not insisted on his death. Rather would they have considered Jesus to be another troublemaker who was stirring up the people, and who would be better out of the way.

If the Jews wanted to kill someone, they had no compunction in doing so by their traditional method of stoning. There is the story of the woman caught in adultery being stoned to death, and the story of Stephen being stoned to death which occured after the crucifixion. Crucifixion was a Roman method of punishment not a Jewish one.

The growth of the international Christian Church is almost solely due to the apostle Paul. He was the first theologian and founding missionary of the Christian movement. All of the earliest Christians were devout orthodox Jews who continued to worship in the temple at Jerusalem. Paul had not forsaken the ancient Hebrew faith, or the god who demanded blood sacrifices. All he had really done was to form a new sect within the Hebrew faith. It could have remained just another Jewish sect of uncertain endurance if Paul had not broadened the concept to include the whole world. It was Paul who persuaded the leaders to allow believers of all races to join the Christian movement. It was he who persuaded the elders that the Jewish national mark of circumcision should not be required for entry into the new sect. Indeed, Paul embarked on extensive tours, preaching to all who would listen. He established numerous churches in the Roman empire; one was even established in Rome itself.

The Christian dogma sprang from the Old Testament. It still threatened those who failed to believe, with punishment from god. Paul changed the Jewish Old Testament promises of a Messiah from a physical saviour and leader of the nation, to a spiritual saviour of all people. He pointed to the old Jewish religious tradition of sacrificing animals to their god for their sins and proclaimed that Jesus the Messiah was the "lamb of god which taketh away the sins of the world" (John 1:29).

Until Mark's gospel appeared, at the very least thirty five years after the crucifixion, the early Christians had no written record of the sayings of Jesus. They were therefore dependent on memory and word of mouth repetition of the stories. It is most likely that distortions and shades of meaning occurred at that time. Indeed it would be impossible to avoid errors. This could account for the different versions found in the four gospels. Whatever the facts of the life and sayings of Jesus might have been, he is conceived today as being the epitome of gentleness, forth rightness and compassion. He was concerned with human welfare and had a passion for children and the oppressed. These essential characteristics were greatly diminished in importance as a result of the Pauline doctrine. They were still further diminished under the structure of a hierarchical church which took root under Constantine the emperor of Rome (306-37 A.D.).

In his letters to the churches, Paul hardly mentions the personal life or sayings of Jesus. He is far more interested in his own theological doctrine that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the saviour of all the world. His doctrine was not humane in the sense that the teaching of Jesus was humane. He was concerned with the Jewish belief in the shedding of blood to pay for sins. Paul talks a great deal about redemption and the need to make atonement for sin by the shedding of blood. He changed the practical philosophy of Jesus to a theology of compulsory belief which really said, "believe as I say or you will be damned."

He also promised that the Messiah Jesus would soon come back again to rule the whole world in righteousness. It was the expected imminent return of Jesus which accounted for the big gap in time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament.

As a theologian, Paul provided the rationale and doctrine for the new faith. He claimed that Jesus fulfilled the meaning and purpose of the old Jewish sacred texts. In his eyes the animal sacrifices, down through the ages, were symbols of the sacrifice of Jesus "the son of god" who was crucified for the sins of the whole world. Paul's letters to his churches became a large portion of the New Testament and established the doctrine, organization and attitudes of its adherents for two thousand years. Even Paul's attitude to women has strongly influenced the Christian Church to this day. We will discuss the place assigned to women within the Judaeo-Chris-tian religions later.

What an achievement for a tent-maker who suffered persistent poor health. Paul, a zealous orthodox and Hellenized Jew, was born a Roman citizen in the city of Tarsus. His native country teemed with esoteric philosophies and religious cults promising all kinds of religious benefits. In Athens, Paul even found an altar with the inscription, "to the unknown god". The world was ripe for new religions. The notion of polytheism was about to give way to monotheism.

I see Paul foremost as a fanatical orthodox Jew who was a theologian and a good organizer, and ruled his churches through his theology. His character never changed. I do not see him as a warm person overly concerned with human happiness or potential. By claiming to have the authority to speak on behalf of god, he and church leaders strengthened their power over people. They proceeded to dictate what everyone should think, believe and do.

We have seen that apart from the New Testament itself, there is almost a complete lack of historical evidence of Jesus. No mention of him is made in the Dead Sea Scrolls; it is almost as if the Essenes had not heard of him. The written story of Jesus itself had a shaky and unorganised beginning and came down to the church by translations from translations. Perhaps the text itself will help us to determine whether it is indeed the word of a god.

The best known moral teaching of Jesus is found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt.5-7 and Luke 6 20-46). The other two gospels do not mention the Sermon on the Mount. Luke says it happened on a plain, Matthew on a mountain. The sermon starts with blessing the poor in spirit, those that mourn, the meek, the humble, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemaker and the persecuted. In Matt 5:16, it advocates good works and righteousness. In verse 22 it threatens judgement and hell-fire for a person who is angry with his brother. It says that a man who looks on a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. Then the injunction "If your eye offend thee, pluck it out". People remember the positive but forget the negative teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. We are, however, advised to observe practices most of us could feel good about, not to swear by anything, to return good for evil, love our enemies, and avoid hypocrisy. What is known as the Lord's Prayer is part of the sermon. "Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." If god is the omnipotent creator of all, why need we ask that his will be done on earth? We will have more to say about The Sermon on the Mount elsewhere.

Yes, there is kindly sentiment and good advice which we all appreciate, but does this have to be explained as evidence of divine origin? We will see that many other philosophers who lived before Jesus also advocated virtuous behaviour. They made no claim to represent god. From an ethical point of view the Christian doctrine provided no new ideas or new moral standards. Neither Matthew nor Luke tell us who heard or remembered the sermon. Both were writing many years after the death of Jesus. There is a sprinkling of folk wisdom such as "judge not that ye be not judged" and "let not the sun go down on your wrath". It would, however, have been remarkable if the current folk wisdom were not included. Folk wisdom is as old as humankind and represents our ability to understand and interpret the world about us and our role within it.

Was Jesus a racist? It is certainly reported that he said his message was for the Jews and not for the Gentiles. He even likened a Gentile woman to a dog. "And his disciples came to him saying. Send her away for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him saying. Lord, help me. But he answered and said. It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs. And she said. Truth, Lord; Yet the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from the master's table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, 0 woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as thou wilt" (Matt 15:23-26).

In Matthew 10:5 we read "These twelve [his disciples] Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and unto any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go preach, saying, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Again in John 4:22 he is speaking to a Samaritan woman and says "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." It seems that Jesus did not see himself as the saviour of the whole world at all; but rather the promised Messiah who was to come to save Israel from her enemies. Here again, Paul's idea of a gospel for all people, seems to differ from that of Jesus himself.

Jesus said, "Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." "Not all that say unto me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven." "Every one who heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them I will liken him to a wise man." etc. etc. He seemed to be saying that right action would determine acceptance by god and wrong action would result in divine judgment. But Paul was saying that belief was the only determining factor. He tells us, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." Paul changed the emphasis from personal behaviour to belief in a dogma. What little we are told of the teaching of Jesus is humanistic and caring, while the doctrine of Paul is absolute dogma. It is the Pauline dogma which a great many church members have embraced and insisted is divine truth.

Let us briefly look at one of the important rituals of the Christian church. Central to the doctrine is the commemoration of the so-called last supper which Jesus observed before his crucifixion. This is called the holy sacrament and is celebrated by the Catholic and most other Christian churches. The New Testament tells us that during the last supper "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples and said. Take eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt 26:26-28).

The Catholic interpretation of the above scripture is made clear in the statement of the Council of Trent as follows: "If any one shall say that in the holy sacrament of the eucharist there remains together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the substance of the bread and wine and deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into (his) body and the wine into (his) blood, the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion the Catholic Church most fittingly call transubstantiation let him be anathema." (San. Xlll. Can 2).

There is no difference in concept or emotional response between the Christian taking the sacrament and the uneducated heathen warrior who, in time past, ate the heart of his defeated but respected enemy so that he could acquire the courage and skill of his foe. The act comprises symbolic cannibalism and is typical of the thinking which prevailed in primitive religious philosophies. The ritualised appropriation of the suffering and death of Jesus to attain righteousness for the believer, is equal to the warrior attaining courage and skill by eating parts of his enemy. Similarly, there is little difference in aspirations or emotional involvement between ancient Egyptian priests or any other ancient religious order and the modern Christian. Each person is seeking to ensure immortality by union with a supposed eternal spirit or god. Strangely, each separate group seems intolerant of the philosophy of other groups.

Certainly the New Testament is a much warmer book than the Old Testament. But it still is obsessed with sin and seeking to find reconciliation with a god in the traditional Jewish way. The story of Jesus depends heavily on magical happenings called miracles. The word love appears about a hundred times in the New Testament, but so does the word evil, and sin appears about two hundred and fifty times. There is also a lot of mention of the need to fear god and threats of judgment for those who do not believe.

There are hundreds of interpretations of the New Testament ranging from absolute literalism to almost total symbolism. The doctrine of hell was one of the first to become unacceptable to many Christians. It was followed by disbelief in the virgin birth, the possibility of the return of Jesus, miracles and almost all New Testament teaching. The only thing which has survived in all interpretations of the Jesus story is belief in virtue, compassion, love, tenderness faith and justice. The actual teaching of the Bible has been replaced with a philosophy of good works. In varying degrees the people have moved away from the absolute dogma of the early church because reason and modern knowledge made nonsense of literal interpretations.

When we go back into history we find that virtue, compassion, love, faith and justice have been presented by philosophers of all ages, societies and religions. They are the same social qualities which made it possible for human beings to become a community. These qualities have always been part of human experience. The Christian dogma does not improve our basic social drives, indeed, it often contributes to anti-social discord. It is when these social qualities become less important that discord and anti-social behaviour develops within the home and the society.

The god of the New Testament is presented as the all-powerful, all-knowing, always present, all-seeing creator of the universe. He is said to be holy, the essence of truth and goodness, to be loving and the sustainer of all things. He dispenses mercy and judgement but cannot look upon sin and can only be approached through Jesus.

So we ask, why are we told to pray "Thy will be done on earth"? If it is done, why has god caused famines, earthquakes, disease and massive suffering? If it is not done, who is responsible, the devil? Then god cannot be both loving and all-powerful.

The Bible says, "Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards." Did the god of the Bible create mankind knowing that so many would be destroyed by hunger and disease? If he is all-knowing, he cannot at the same time be full of goodness.

If god is always present, did he stand by and see the concentration camps during the war or the misery of famine victims the world has witnessed in recent years? If so, where is his mercy and justice? If he is all-seeing, how is it that he is so holy that he cannot look on sin or have sinners in his presence? How can god understand human beings and be a heavenly father to them unless they can approach him unconditionally. Why is it that he cannot forgive without demanding a price?

If god is truth, why did he tell Old Testament characters to deceive their enemies? Why has he not given us clear and indisputable evidence of his existence? If there is indeed a god as described in the Bible he must be a sadistic monster without a flicker of pity for the creatures of his own making. I am unable to accept a god who cannot forgive without demanding a price, who punishes for the evil others committed " to the third and fourth generation", and who allows mindless suffering to go on and on throughout our world. If there is an all-embracing spirit, a creative universal mind or whatever you like to call it, one thing is sure, it is NOT the god of the Bible. If indeed we saw an all-powerful and loving force for good operating in this world, there would be no need in the minds of people for a next world. This world would become a true heaven of beauty and love. How can you reconcile the unjust suffering of millions of people with an all-powerful, merciful god? Of course you cannot. The world is not controlled by a personal god or an impersonal universal mind who tries to help its inhabitants. On this world, all living matter destroys something in order to live, and in turn, finally becomes food or fertiliser for new living matter. It is an indisputable and self evident basic process of nature and I do not complain or find it unacceptable.

Modern humans cannot realistically place hope for peace and love on the ancient, unconfirmed and flimsy story of Jesus. It grew out of Hebrew mythology and fear of a judgemental god. We can, and from time to time do, change the ills and injustices of our society through the process of public opinion by enacting better laws. Our hope must be in the growing social consciousness of the international community.