Lord Acton is often quoted as having said that "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The rest of the passage in question is seldom quoted - perhaps because it is only too true - "Great men are almost always bad men." Perhaps we should ponder the words "almost always". Many great men are, if not actually bad, greatly overestimated. History is littered with the remains of defunct 'cults of personality'.

Now that we have all been subjected once more to the 'Easter Message' and assuming that Jesus was, at least, a great man, can we not wonder whether he has been an over-estimated man? The Christian 'eye of faith' is, by definition, unwilling to contemplate this but those without that eye might wish to do so.

In particular the ethical teachings biblically attributed to Jesus are often thought, even by religious sceptics, to be wholly and especially valuable.

The words "attributed to" are used advisedly; we depend on ancient documents that may or may not be the originals and translations that may or may not be quite faithful to whatever original sources there are. This anxiety is not something that atheists are trying, conspiratorially, to frighten people with; the scholars responsible for the New English Bible state clearly, regarding the source documents, that "the problems are what to translate and how to translate it."

So we ought to read the gospels as we would read anything else - critically. To depend 'dutifully' upon 'the eye of faith' is to risk 'making it all mean what you would like it to mean.' This error diminishes both the reader and that which is being read. Have you ever really thought questioningly about the teachings attributed directly to Jesus in the Bible?

It can be claimed that these teachings are not all good ones; some simply give a bad message and some a confused message.

Ethical confusion is apparent when we compare the requirement to conceal one's good acts (MAT 6: 1-4) with the story of the widow's mites (MARK 12 : 41-44) To conceal one's good works is to diminish their practical value - the value of good example. Everybody knows that a most potent force for good is good example; how can good example be set by good works that nobody else knows about?

Of course we should not brag about our good works - that would be to set a bad example (bragging) as well as a good one (the works themselves). The passage in question is simply shallow; any thinking person can see that the middle way - doing good openly but not ostentatiously - is the ideal to aim at.

When we consider the story of the widow's mites, the moral we are often invited to draw is quite the opposite to that in the first passage quoted. The widow's mites story says, in effect, that good example is all.

The actual sum given by the widow was so small as to be, in itself, almost useless but her openly good example might be seen as a prompt to others, more fortunate than herself, to give more and so do more good even though such larger giving by richer people entails less of a sacrifice to the givers than did the widow's gesture.

Perhaps the scrappy construction of the gospels - short verses in short chapters - is a fault of presentation. Perhaps a better-rounded format is needed; ethics in bits and pieces, supposedly uttered 'on the hoof', is not really satisfactory.

A more reflective approach is often seen, we are told, in the writings of Confucius; he might well have said something like 'set a good example by being of good disposition and by achieving good results.' One suspects that the 'sayings of Confucius' are perhaps not what he really said; perhaps some of them are later constructions ("what to translate and how to translate it!"). Perhaps some scholar on the net might look into this on our general behalf.

Identifying consequences is an important part of ethical inquiry. Indeed the widow's mites tale is partly about the consequences that her unselfish example might be expected to have produced but, when we consider MAT 5:28, we have to be shocked at an apparent indifference to consequences.

The verse itself is brief and well known (from the King James version) - "But I say unto you. That whosoever looketh on a woman in lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart".

What is intended to be conveyed by this is not clear; what is clear is that no sharp distinction is drawn in this verse between thought and action.

We may consider the fact that several million heterosexual male readers of The Sun newspaper routinely look at page three and commit adultery in their hearts while, except as a comparative rarity, they do not actually commit adultery even once a month, let alone six times a week. It requires no great leap of the imagination to see that were the act as prevalent as the thought then the world would be a much worse place to live in - in most people's estimation.

Admittedly the verse in Matthew does not actually equate the lustful thought to the lustful act but it does seem to weaken the distinction when, as common sense shows, that distinction ought to be emphasised.

Let us consider a practical case - involving a confession rather than an accusation or a contrived hypothesis.

There are several women in my vicinity whom I find to be sexually attractive and, while it might be deemed wrong of me to think so, (and not only to entertain such thoughts but, occasionally to let them entertain me) my thoughts, in themselves, do the women no demonstrable harm.

If however I were to attempt lustfully to act upon such thoughts then the effects on any woman I might select would be demonstrably harmful to her; such effects, depending upon the exact nature of my action, might range from tedious insult to terrifying humiliation and perhaps physical or psychological injury.

The only way that the thought and the act can, even remotely, be regarded as equivalent (as the verse can so easily be taken to mean) is to dismiss the hurt that might be inflicted upon the woman as of little or no importance.

What sort of ethic is that?

The little bit of pretend Confucius already offered - "set a good example by being of good disposition and by achieving good results" - does of course depend upon what meaning one attaches to 'good' but at least a reasonable framework is there - which is more than can be said for some of the simplistic sound-bytes attributed to a man who is not known to have written anything for us to read and think about.

As ethical teaching, some of the ideas attributed to Jesus are enormously valuable - "love thy neighbour as thyself" for example - but many other sayings attributed to him would scarcely pass muster in a serious open-minded discussion of moral philosophy. Many great men are over-rated and Jesus appears to be one such.

or e-mail to stockton.sanday.orkney@zetnet.co.uk