The Other Jesus
by G. Lee Robertson
The Other Jesus. From Newsweek (International Edition), March 27, 2000, pp. 38-47. A review by G. Lee Robertson, M.A., M.Div.
Answers to questions about this review of The Other Jesus.
When I first saw this article which appeared in Newsweek magazine I was immediately put on my guard because I had seen so many articles of the past which purported to be objective and informative in such unambiguously secular magazines, while in actual fact they would only consult the most liberal so-called "Christian" scholars in the world today. In many cases such articles quote men from the well known Jesus Seminar, a group of liberal scholars who vote on what they believe to be the actual words of Jesus and what they believe to be fabrications by the zealous, infant, New Testament church. The Other Jesus, although lacking good conservative scholarship, doesn't go so far as to quote the Jesus Seminar and there is some redeeming value, after all is said and done.
The Other Jesus contains only one quote purported to be from a "Protestant theologian." It is from John Cobb who taught theology from 1958 until 1990 at the Methodist-affiliated Claremont School of Theology in California. Cobb is one of the leading thinkers of Process Theology and co-founded the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont school. [http://www.trscom.com/cobb.htm] Cobb says, "I think as the world grows smaller, Jesus as a figure will grow larger." An apt question at this juncture would be: "Which Jesus are you talking about?" The Other Jesus makes it plain that there are many!
At the start of The Other Jesus is a quote from Pope John Paul II who decidedly claims that "Christ is absolutely original and absolutely unique. If He were only a wise man like Socrates, if He were a prophet like Muhammad, if He were enlightened like the Buddha, without doubt He would not be what He is." The next part of the article seems to place the Roman Catholic Pope as the spokesman for all Christians, an idea to which most Protestants would strongly object.
The information about what the pope is saying these days about forgiveness "for sins committed in the name of Catholicism. . . ." is perhaps a key idea in contemporary "reconciliation" movements among some Protestant groups which believe the issues of the 16th century Reformation and return to Scripture as the "sole authority for faith and life" should no longer be an obstacle to unity among those who name the name of Christ. This is always a losing proposition for Protestants who, in the name of unity, must ultimately give up the authority of Scripture for the authority of the Roman Church. The offer of forgiveness to the Roman Church for its many sins recorded in history should not be withheld, but reconciliation under their terms means a return to the Roman Catholic authority structure. Ultimately, that means Scripture must be removed from the seat of authority and it must be surrendered to the purported successor of Peter as its rightful possessor.
This trend toward replacement of Scripture's authority by human personalities seems to be confirmed in the article when it tells of the Pope's goals during his recent Israel travels: ". . . he comes to Jerusalem, the city of peace, hoping to erect bridges among the three monotheistic faiths," with a stress upon the commonalities of the monotheistic faiths of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, including but not limited to ". . . another figure common to the three traditions: Jesus of Nazareth." On the surface it may appear the Pope is refusing to deny the faith by "building bridges between contradictory religions" when he calls Jesus "the one mediator between God and humanity," but knowledge of historic Catholicism sheds a different light on the statement. The Roman Church has for decades believed that "Jesus as the one mediator" does not exclude salvation to members of non-Christian religions, and for centuries has practiced evangelism by replacing local deities in the fields of mission with Catholic saints.
There are many statements in the article which reveal its secular character, but perhaps one of the most striking is on page 41in the section about the views of Jesus from Judaism ". . . before the first Christian century was out, faith in Jesus as universal Lord and Savior eclipsed his early identity as a Jewish prophet and wonder worker." This statement, although on the surface seems rather innocent, is actually straight out of the scholarship of modern unbelief. In the late 19th and early 20th century, liberal Christian scholars began to believe that miracles in the New Testament documents were fabrications added later by the early church. The liberals, therefore, in their newly gained understanding, began to piece together their own versions of "the Life of Jesus." In this way they have inadvertently created a new Jesus with a face of putty that can be made to fit most any belief system known to man. This "Other Jesus" seems to have become the perfect invention for conflict resolution and unity among the world's religions.
This basic approach in The Other Jesus is reinforced in the next paragraph when it says, "Indeed, the lack of extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus has led more than one critic to conclude that he is a Christian fiction created by the early church. There were in fact a half dozen brief passages, later excised from Talmudic texts, that some scholars consider indirect references to Jesus. One alludes to a heresy trial of someone named Yeshu (Jesus) but none of them has any independent value for historians of Jesus." The Other Jesus does not tell us why these ostensibly valid references to the person of Christ in the Talmud are to be considered of no "independent value." Neither does it tell us why the 27 books and letters of the New Testament are not to be considered an accurate source of information.
The fact is that the New Testament is one of the most reliable documents of ancient history. Bible Teacher Josh McDowell points out that the earliest manuscript we have of Aristotle is some 1,400 years from his original writing and there are only 49 ancient copies in existence, while the earliest New Testament manuscripts are only 80 years after their completion and there are some 24,633 manuscripts and manuscript fragments available. Most modern skeptics, however, will accept Aristotle as credible and reject the New Testament.
It is important to note that unreliable witnesses were not tolerated in the early church as is made evident by the fact that Ananias and Sapphira fell dead at the door of the church for twisting the facts a little about how much money they had given. "When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened" (Acts 5:5) In reality, the reports and letters in the New Testament were written with a tremendous "fear of God" about accuracy. If there were the same degree of integrity in the church today that God demanded of the first Christians, perhaps we would not have so many skeptics questioning the existence of Jesus or His resurrection from the dead. It is true that an author can get more support and sell more books if he or she can show significant results, but when all is considered, honesty is the best policy. If everyone who exaggerated the numbers in the church today fell dead, entire mission organizations would be wiped out and some current best sellers would be relegated to the mythology shelf. The practitioners of one of the most dangerous false teachings to appear in the church today, the Word Faith Movement, would be completely exterminated. Instead of being rewarded for false claims to healing, such would fall dead before they could positively confess another word.
Once the article dispenses with the Bible it can only revolve around the various opinions held by scholars both past and present as they sometimes fight each other and sometimes work together to piece together the identity and purpose of this person we call Jesus.
As I began this article I claimed that The Other Jesus does have some redeeming value -- it's the cross! "Clearly, the cross is what separates the Christ of Christianity from every other Jesus. In Judaism there is no precedent for a Messiah who dies, much less as a criminal as Jesus did. In Islam, the story of Jesus' death is rejected as an affront to Allah himself. Hindus can accept only a Jesus who passes into peaceful samadhi, a yogi who escapes the degradation of death. The figure of the crucified Christ, says Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh, is a very painful image to me. It does not contain joy or peace, and this does not do justice to Jesus. There is, in short, no room in other religions for a Christ who experiences the full burden of mortal existence -- and hence there is no reason to believe in him as the divine Son whom the Father resurrects from the dead."
The Other Jesus wisely reveals the cross of Christ as the crux of the history of the world -- "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
1 Corinthians 1:18-24 (NIV)