Who was Jesus? asked the cover of TIME magazine in August, 1988.
_The TIME article was provoked by the release of Martin Scorcese's sensational new movie The Last Temptation of Christ, in which Jesus is portrayed as having sexual fantasies. According to reports, the film is irreverent, even blasphemous, and will prove to be deeply offensive to Christians.
_However, even more worrying than offensive scenes, is Scorcese's studied disregard for the historical evidence concerning Jesus. A similar, though less blatant disdain for biographical truth was displayed in Shaffer's Amadeus, where the young Mozart is depicted (from Salieri's perspective) as a raunchy scatterbrain, in gross exaggeration of the known facts.
_Is it because we find good people boring that Scorcese and Shaffer imaginatively darken the characters of Jesus and Mozart to make them better box office commodities? Laws of defamation may protect the reputations of the living, but they afford no help to the defenceless notables of the past. Fiction presented as fiction is acceptable; fiction presented as a recreation of history is not.
_Well then, who was Jesus? It's an old question. In Jesus' own time, people asked, “Who is this man?” and various answers were given. Many thought he was a prophet, like one of the Hebrew prophets of the past. One leading scholar of the time is on record as saying he was a teacher come from God, but others thought of him in negative terms—as a lunatic, at best, or in league with the devil, at worst.
_Today, it is no different: people continue to express wildly opposing views about Jesus' identity. A quick survey of the views of professors of theology at some major universities illustrates the point.
_Burton Mack from California sees Jesus as a philosopher with biting humour in the style of the School of the Cynics from the Greek world. In contrast, Geza Vennes from Oxford sees Jesus as a gentle mystic—a devout Jewish rabbi. Samuel Brandon from Manchester regards Jesus as a stern Jewish patriot—part of the revolutionary resistance against Rome. But for Morton Smith from New York, Jesus was a promiscuous magician.
_Why do scholars hold such astonishingly diverse theories about Jesus?
_Partly it is because chairs of theology at universities are increasingly filled by people who come from outside the framework of Christian belief. A Jew such as Geza Vermes will obviously approach Jesus from the perspective of his own beliefs. The diversity of views is also encouraged by the very nature of the academic world. Those who get ahead are those who publish, and publishers tend to be interested in a new angle, not in yet another orthodox treatment.
_Furthermore, it is doubtful that Jesus can be understood outside the framework of the New Testament writers. Yet many modem scholars fail to take this seriously, and prefer to explain Jesus in imaginative ways—usually on the basis of a narrow selection of the total data available.
_But lest we confine enquiry about Jesus to the ivory towers of academe, it also must be said that the community at large holds a broad range of opinions about Jesus. Son of God, miracle-worker, great moral teacher, a misunderstood prophet, a non-existent legend—all these opinions and more are expressed by people in our society.
_Unfortunately, like the modem scholars, most people formulate their opinion of Jesus without much regard for the historical evidence of the New Testament. In a recent survey of young people at an Australian university, 91 per cent expressed some firm opinion as to who Jesus was. However, 50 per cent had never read any portion of the New Testament, and a further 25 per cent had read five books or less (out of the 27 books). That is, while almost everyone had an opinion, hardly anyone had a reasonable basis for their opinion; hardly anyone had bothered to go back to the source and examine the raw evidence. And this among the most highly educated group in our society!
_It is obvious that the New Testament holds the key to the question of Jesus' identity but can these documents be trusted? If they represent all we really know about Jesus, are they accurate and reliable? Five things can be said in defence of their integrity.
_Given that the New Testament is a reliable historical document, what does it tell us about Jesus? The views of the New Testament writers could be expressed in brief terms as follows:
_Matthew | The Christ or Messiah, Emmanuel (‘God with us’), the Son of God |
Mark | The Son of God, the Christ |
Luke [Acts] | The Son of the Most High |
John | The Christ, the Son of God |
Paul | God's own Son, our Lord Jesus Christ |
Author of Hebrews | The Son of God, our great High Priest |
James | Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory |
Peter | Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd |
Jude | Jesus Christ, our only Master and Lord |
Who was Jesus? The writers of the New Testament were convinced that he was the Son of God, the Lord or King of all—to be believed in, trusted and served.
_If the documents that make these claims are trustworthy (and I would strongly suggest that they are), we have a solid basis on which to investigate for ourselves who Jesus was. We can read the New Testament and make our own evaluation of the Jesus who walks its pages.
_And we need to do so with an open mind, willing to accept what we find and prepared to act in response.
_