My life has been strongly impacted by the lives and teachings of three Master Teachers: Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Socrates, and Jesus. One could argue that these three are the most influential teachers of all time. Although none of the three ever yielded political power, traveled far from his homeland, or wrote any books, they each played a major role in the development of the beliefs and practices of literally millions of people. Also, each separated himself from formal religion.
I have always been fascinated by the methods by means of which these three teachers managed to inspire so many people and guide entire cultures. Although there are similarities in their respective teaching methods, each one stands on his own in unique ways. None of them ever taught at a university or stood in lecture halls. Basically, each followed a very personal and dialogical approach to the task of sharing their respective insights.
Siddhartha was raised in the teachings of Hinduism, but after exploring many of its various practices and teachings he decided that he would have to find his own way to intellectual and spiritual integrity. As the story goes, when his disillusionment reached its peak, he sat down under a Bo tree and vowed to stay put until he was “enlightened”. After finally “getting it”, he went around teaching informally throughout the countryside.
The essence of his teaching was that since all suffering is caused by undue striving, the key to enlightenment is to rid oneself of striving. We must learn to simply “accept” the world and our personal experience the way it comes to us.
This is done by developing a life of integrity in which one makes sure to have proper motives, thoughts, and actions. A simple, accepting posture toward life is the key to “happiness”, according to the Buddha.
Socrates did not develop a formal lesson in the way that Siddhartha did. Rather, he was committed to the value of asking questions about everything and of everybody. He is famous for the dictum: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” He claimed that the oracle at Delphi had said he was the wisest man in the world, and Socrates knew that this only meant he was only one who admitted up front that he did not know the answers to life’s big questions.
Socrates’ disciple Plato wrote a lot of books using Socrates as the mouthpiece for his own theories. In Republic Socrates is asked if all his theories are true, he replies: “I do not know. I do know that if we keep asking questions, we shall be wiser and better people.” Eventually he was tried and put to death for teaching “false religion and corrupting young people.” As he predicted, “ignorance runs faster than death.”
Jesus, like both Siddhartha and Socrates, was a simple itinerant teacher. He founded no school, no religious sect, wrote nothing, was ostracized by the Jewish authorities, and finally crucified by the Romans. He taught people to “love their enemies”, trust only in God, and live simply. After reaching adulthood he spent about three years walking around in Palestine, teaching those who would listen and healing those who were sick.
The most authentic record we have of Jesus’ teachings is found in what is called the “Gospel of Q”. This source is named ‘Q” by New Testament scholars after the German term for “source”, Quella. Although no such document has been found, it can easily be reconstructed by assembling the passages where the Gospels of Luke and Matthew agree without containing any of the Gospel of Mark. It is believed that both Mark and Q were used by the authors of both Luke and Matthew.
Q has been reconstructed by Professor Marcus Borg in The Lost Gospel Q, and represents the closest thing we have to the authentic teachings of Jesus. The other universally recognized body of teachings of Jesus is what is called “The Sermon on the Mount” found in Matthew chapters five through seven. These are admitted by all to be very radical teachings that turn nearly all traditional values upside down. Love of God and other people, even “sinners” and “evil doers”, is seen to be Jesus’ main concern.
So, these three “Master Teachers”, perhaps the most influential teachers of all time, clearly seem to be working from the same page. Personal integrity, the search for truth, and the love of others were their basic values. Perhaps most of all, they each embodied a kind of humility rarely encountered in the world today.

As is well known, there are four somewhat different accounts of Jesus’ life in the New Testament. In addition, there is the “document” called Q, which can be extracted from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke wherever they agree with each other but do not agree with the Gospel of Mark. This material has been published by Professor Marcus Borg as The Lost Gospel (Ulysses Press. 1996).
In my view the most direct way to find out who Jesus really was is to consult this record, for it was clearly the earliest source. Q is recognized by New Testament scholars to be the “first” Gospel because it was incorporated into Matthew and Luke along with the Gospel of Mark. Thus, in Q we get a much simpler and earlier account of what Jesus had to say.
I am interested in getting as close as possible to the original sayings of Jesus because I think he, rather than Paul and other New Testament writers, is the person Christians should be trying to follow. Not only does Q not contain information about Jesus’ death and resurrection, but it does not include any stories about Jesus’ interactions with the religious and political leaders of his day.
Q begins with the account of John the Baptist’s ministry and Jesus’ baptism by John. Jesus seems to have taken his initial cue from John’s message about repentance and moral rectitude (Q 1-5). The Greek term translated as “repent” is metanoia which literally means to change one’s mind. John was calling for a deep kind of “conversion” on the part of his listeners, one that would cause them to live a life of concern for those less well off than themselves. “Whoever has two shirts must share with someone who has none. (Q 2).
After this description of John’s message, Jesus is said to have gone out into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The notion of a “devil” had been inherited by the Jews form the Persian and Babylonian religions where they had been in exile. There is no systematic teaching about any “Satan”, etc. in the Hebrew Scripture. Jesus’ temptation follows a very stereotyped pattern in which Jesus is asked to place the Tempter ahead of God in his life. He adamantly refuses to do so, quoting Hebrew Scriptures as his explanation. (Q 6-8).
Directly after this Jesus is said to have retired in solitude, spending the night in prayer (Q9). It is interesting to note that in Q, as well as in all four of the standard Gospels, Jesus offers no “public prayers”, although on several occasions he does offer instructions as to how people should pray, notably, for example, in what is called the “Lord’s Prayer” in Q34. Once or twice by implication he criticizes hypocritical people, perhaps religious leaders, for their insincerity.
Beginning with Q9 Jesus launches unto a lengthy set of teachings about the very heart of faithful living (Q9-22). These teachings are repeated in Luke Chapter 6 (“The Sermon on the Plain”) and in Matthew 5-7 (“The Sermon on the Mount”). In my mind these teachings constitute the very heart of Jesus’ message. They run straight to the core of his views on authentically faithful living. Even the generally skeptical scholars who produced the infamous “Jesus Seminar” agreed that these passages represent the most authentic dimension of Jesus’ teachings.
These scholars concluded this on the basis of the fact that so many of the teachings are what are called “hard sayings”, namely teachings that run contrary to the normal way of thinking about life and faith. In other words, they are not teachings calculated to “win friends and influence people”. On the contrary, they represent a radical understanding of how God would have us live and believe, one that sets aside many of the values and standards commonly embraced.
In these teachings Jesus extolls poverty, hunger, sorrow, gentleness, mercifulness, moral purity, and peacemaking (Q9-12). Moreover, he goes on to say that we ought to “Love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who treat us badly.” (Q14). We are told to do this expecting nothing in return. (Q16). Also, “treat people as you would like them to treat you”. (Q16).
The admonition to love one’s enemies strikes to the heart of the matter. It is important to note that unfortunately we have come to see love as an emotional feeling rather than as an active form of behavior. The Greek term in the New Testament for love is agape, which indicates a form of action rather than a feeling. This becomes clear from a minute’s reflection on John 3:16 where we are told that “God loved the world in such a way as to give his son” for their salvation. God’s action is what matters here, not God’s feelings.
Clearly these teachings go way beyond traditional morality. They call us to a very different way of thinking about our faith and our way of living it out. Forgiveness and radical, not comfortable, sharing, with those in need is required. Once or twice, Jesus is represented as teaching by way of what in the other Gospels is called “parables”. The finding of a lost sheep is celebrated (Q71) and a faithful, industrious servant is rewarded while one who “played it close to the vest” by not investing the money his master had entrusted him with is reprimanded (Q81-82).
Thus, both industry and stewardship are esteemed in Jesus’ eyes, but not so as to overshadow charity and forgiveness. “Not just seven times, but seventy-seven times” (Q77). Throughout these teachings great emphasis is placed on the simple life, one in which a person does not hoard up money and possessions (Q50-54). Jesus condemns a legalistic approach to the “letter of the law” that ignores its spirit (Q43). More than once he praises the inclusion of Gentiles, “outsiders”, into one’s circle of friends (Q41).
Jesus’ attitude toward Gentiles, even throughout the other Gospels, is extraordinary. In his day the Jewish people, especially the religious leaders, held all Gentiles in contempt, as being completely “unclean” and sinful. Several times in Q, as well as in the other Gospels, Jesus seems to go out of his way to acknowledge the good deeds and sincerity of several Gentiles. Indeed, in Q23-24 he specifically praises a Roman Centurion whose servant he had healed by saying: “Nowhere in Israel have I found such faith”.
It will be remembered that in John’s Gospel Chapter 4, Jesus goes out of his way to converse about spiritual matters with a Samaritan woman. The Samaritans were, in the minds of the Hebrews, just as bad as regular Gentiles because they had intermarried with unclean Gentiles and had developed their own version of Judaism. This makes Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan especially poignant. In all the Gospels, as well as in Q, Jesus was clearly “no respecter of persons.”
There are two references to the notion of carrying “one’s cross” (Q57 and 69). Because there is no mention of Jesus’ own cross and crucifixion in Q it seems best to interpret these references as referring to the simple matter of remaining true to one’s calling as a believer. In one place Jesus “predicts” that people will come from every direction and be accepted into God’s great “banquet (Q64), especially those who were not initially invited (Q68). Even Gentiles will be welcomed (Q41). Throughout Q, as with the other Gospels, Jesus is seen as quite comfortable with so-called “unsavory” characters, such as tax collectors and outcasts. Q26.
One troubling aspect of Q is that in several places it has Jesus referring to the rewards that those who are faithful will receive for having done “good deeds”. Q13, 16. The whole tenor of Jesus’ teachings in Q seems to negate this way of thinking about one’s motivation for having moral integrity.
The picture of “God’s realm” drawn in these teachings is radically inclusive and quite distinctive. It is talked about, not as a “kingdom” in the traditional sense, but as a way of living. Some have suggested the term “Kinship of God” as a way of avoiding the negativities associated with the traditional notion of kingly rule (Q27, 30, 31, 62). Clearly Jesus was not advocating a view of God as a monarch ruling according to the “Divine Right of Kings”. His own refusal to offer himself as an authoritarian Master indicates that his understanding of God is far from the traditional one. In fact, as he puts it in Q79: “The kingdom of God is within you.”
Indeed, Jesus viewed God as his “Father”, something quite different from the “Kingly Ruler” of the Hebrew Scriptures. The radical character of this way of thinking of God is often overlooked. This Fatherly image of God is essentially missing from the entire Hebrew Scriptures. There God is depicted as a tribal ruler, a mighty warrior, and as a refuge in times of difficulty. Here in Q Jesus often speaks of God as his or our Father, a much richer and non-authoritarian image. In fact, in Q34 he uses the more personal, familiar Aramaic the term “Abba”.
It should be noted well that nowhere in Q, nor in the other Gospels, does Jesus refer to himself as the “Son of God”. His own preferred way of speaking of himself is as the “Son of Man” or more exactly, the “Son of Humanity”. He seems to have borrowed this term form the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures, although his use of it does not seem to connect up with the story of Daniel. It can be argued that Jesus’ use of this term was meant to imply that he had come in order to represent humanity to God, as well as showing humanity how to live before God. (Q26, 80).
There are several references in Q to Jesus’ healing ministry. (Q23,24 and 37). What is remarkable in each case, as well as throughout the other Gospels, is that he heals people in a rather matter-of-fact manner. He has no special incantation or exotic charms. He simply says: “Be healed”. In one or two places in the other Gospels he actually makes mud by spitting on the ground and placing it on a blind man’s eyes. It is never clear exactly how he accomplishes these healings, but it is clear that healing people of their infirmities was a vital part of his ministry.
Finally, it is clear throughout Q that one of Jesus’ main concerns was with what we would call “social justice” (Q 43, 44). He is especially critical of those who would focus on “religiosity” rather than on the needs of the less fortunate. In each of the traditional Gospels as well, Jesus often speaks, like the Hebrew prophets before him, of the need to care of the sick, the poor, widows and orphans, and those who are “strangers”.
This, then, is the Jesus presented in the “Gospel of Q”. Nearly all of it, though often in different form, was incorporated into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but not without considerable alteration and expansion. What stands out here is the bare simplicity of Jesus’ message, the direct conversation about God and the life of faith. Not only did the other Gospel writers and editors add a great deal to the story, but they did so in a way that seems to detract from Jesus’ simple teachings.
Moreover, what is truly puzzling, and in my view reprehensible, is the fact that the Apostle Paul makes absolutely no references to any aspect of Jesus’ teachings or healings. His “Gospel” is exclusively about Jesus’ death, resurrection, and future return. It is clear that the canonical Gospel writers and editors added these aspects of the story to their own accounts of Jesus’ ministry, which were largely derived from the Q document. Thus, in my view, the more authentic understanding of Jesus’ teachings as found in Q were obscured by these later additions.