plates and sunglasses with the Madonna on every one.

I still remember perfectly the day when I, as a boarder at the strict Catholic College of Saint-Michel, Fribourg, first heard Jesus' moving speech of farewell to his Apostles, in which he announced the 'Last Judgment' to them and prophesied that the Lord 'shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left' (Matthew 25:33 et seq.).

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison and ye came unto me.

The Prefect of the College exhorted us to live every day in such a way that we stood before God with a pure heart at every moment, because we had never doubted his word, because we had always believed God's word, without deviating one iota from the scripture.

During the sermon I realized that I would definitely stand on the left side, for I was full of doubts.

How is that, I mused? Is the Prefect right when he says that God will reward the faithful who have no doubts? Will those who can believe without temptation stand on the right hand side of God? Simply because they have always believed? True, the Prefect incessantly based himself on God's word, but he had never been present at a heavenly selection board or when the faithful were rewarded! The Prefect might be wrong.

For all my doubts I was nevertheless convinced at the time that Jesus, the Son of God, had coined the wonderful moving words. Today I know that this text, too, originated from the so-called 'Testament of Joseph' [21]. I quote: I was sold as a slave, but the Lord made me free; I was taken prisoner, but his strong hand helped me; I was tormented with hunger, but the Lord fed me; I was alone, but God comforted me, I was ill, but the All Highest visited me; I was in prison, but the Saviour blessed me.

Is further proof needed that Jesus' words were not born of his 'divine spirit'? They were in religious use long before him. (So far none of the many explanations has interpreted his words as archetypal memories from the unconscious [C.G. Jung] ... but even then they would not be of divine origin.)

To me it seems quite certain that Jesus entered the school of the Essenes and had an extremely profound knowledge of their teaching. In that way the man from Nazareth or Bethlehem would have kindled the torch of Christianity from traditional religious genius. Would that be so terrible? Only if the consubstantiality of Jesus has to remain the basis of Christian doctrine.

We look benevolently on the growing crowds of Jesus people as a sign of youth turning towards the faith. We allow musicals like 'Jesus Christ Superstar' to be performed in church. I do not like to experience my God in make-up, dancing, singing and bawling. My belief in divine omnipotence is too big, indeed quite old-fashioned. It is sacrosanct. This unnatural buffoonery would not be necessary if the problem of God's word were answered honourably and with brutal frankness according to the latest state of research. Today conviction is more attractive than belief.

Jesus came into the world as the illegitimate child of the Virgin Mary in an unknown place. Mary was poor, but wanted the boy to have a good education; she knew that the Essenes accepted other people's children while stilt pliable and teachable. Mary took her child to the monastery school on the Dead Sea. To the Essenes the polytheism of the Romans was blasphemy and the fraternization of the Temple Jews with the occupiers a disgrace. The Essenes decided to strengthen the Jewish population in their psychological resistance against the occupiers and inoculate them with hate by means of disguised speeches (parables). In the little settlements on the Sea of Genezareth and as far as Jericho a maquis came into being, a partisan movement which was mainly fired by John the Baptist, who was a fluent experienced orator. Jesus was a teachable pupil in the desert: he learnt the methods of mass psychology from the preacher John.

At the age of thirty Jesus left the Essene community and himself went round the country as a preacher.

He chose (undoubtedly not in the simple way described in the New Testament) his twelve disciples.

The 'Apostles' were by no means innocent babes in the wood, they were ringleaders of the local maquis: at least four have been identified as 'Zealots', members of the anti-Roman national party, as dagger-men [22] This bodyguard was so perfectly organized, so eloquent and possessed by such missionary zeal that Jesus, as their leader, could risk making an appearance in the city.

He camouflaged his speeches, which were in fact political, from the Roman soldiers - in case they understood his language or had an interpreter with them - with religious sayings. But the Sadducee and Pharisee theologians also understood his exhortations.

Jesus made them nervous, because they fraternized with the Romans and were dead set against this itinerant preacher spoiling things for them politically. A tacit gentlemen's agreement existed between the Jewish elite and the Roman officer caste. The local high society kept its sanctuaries and could continue to use the Temple. Agriculture and trade, as well as trafficking in money, functioned in the traditional way. The Romans merely exacted a tribute, a fairly juicy tax. However it may be, the Jewish leadership did not want this comparatively tolerable status quo upset, it suited them very well.

Then Jesus and his bodyguard suddenly appeared in the busiest places in Jerusalem and made rabblerousing speeches, even if they were in a religious guise.

How could they get rid of this troublesome itinerant preacher?

It can be assumed that the citizens knew perfectly well that Jesus was an Essene, at any rate one of those who knew how to wrap their maxims of a life of humility, righteousness and love skilfully round their political maxims. The Romans on the other hand, did not notice what was going on for a long time. They regarded the Essene preacher as a harmless priest, whose speeches did not affect Roman interests and sovereign rights. Someone some time - perhaps even a top man in the Jewish elite - opened the eyes of the occupying power to what was going on. From that day on Jesus was shadowed.

It is not clear from the Gospels what happened. A communication to the Roman Procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate (26-36), must have been enough to have steps taken against him at once. Had the Jewish high priest Caiaphas (18-36) given the governor a hint? Had he told Pilate what the pious Essene was trying to achieve with his meek-sounding speeches? Had Jesus and his followers stormed the Temple - as Joel Carmichael asserts [23]?

In any case it must have been a case of a political denunciation, for the Romans did not interfere with Jewish religious life. But it is established that it was not a matter of a popular uprising, a rebellion or a revolution against the Romans. That would have been recorded in Roman history. The event must have been comparatively unimportant. However it is also established that Jesus and his disciples had to hide quite suddenly. Why?

The Gospels describe Jesus as a gentle man who is ready to help, whose speeches encourage the pure life, who heals the sick and brings the dead to life. Jesus himself knew that his life was in danger. With his companions he withdrew to the Mount of Olives with its three peaks, east of the valley of Kidron, near Jerusalem. The risky game was up.

Everyone knows the description of the most dramatic happening in world literature. The Romans look for the Nazarenes, assisted by Jews who know the locality well. The disciples, exhausted by the excitement and efforts of the last few days, fall into a deep sleep in their hiding-place. Jesus alone is unable to rest; he sweats 'blood'. The flickering light of pine torches throws an eerie light on the scene.