The Lord and The Master: Jesus and Confucius

Both Jesus and Confucius, as two of history’s most famous thinkers, have some things in common.

Yeshua (Jesus), who eventually became known by his followers as The Lord, left no account of his life or his teachings in his own hand. His sayings, which he spoke in Aramaic, had to wait for many years after his death to be written down in Greek and Latin.

Hundreds of years later they were again translated into German by Martin Luther. Then in 1611, they were translated again into the old Shakespearean English of the King James version and its descendents (Protestant). And again into the Douay-Rheims version and its variations (Catholic). More recently, in the 20th century, there have been a wave of contemporary English translations like the New International Version (Evangelical).

What we are left with today are those sayings of Jesus that have been edited and translated over the millennia by his disciples and his disciples’ disciples so we can only make educated guesses about the accuracy of his original sayings.

It is interesting to note that many English-speaking people are not even aware that the original languages of the Bible are Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament).

images4.jpg A similar situation applies to Confucius who became known to his followers as The Master. Confucius is the romanised version of K’ung Fu-tzu which means Master Kung. Like Jesus, Confucius left no writings of his own and so we also have to rely on the accounts handed down by later generations of his disciples.

Books alleged to be written by him (Book of Odes, Book of Ritual, Spring and Autumn Annals) were actually only edited by him. Confucious wrote no works of his own. Even the Analects of Confucius was written by a disciple or disciples who wrote down a collection of The Master’s sayings which they began with the, now famous, phrase Confucius says ….

In addition to these similarities, there are also some interesting differences between these two great teachers. The Lord emphasised the Judaic tradition of ‘The Father in Heaven’ as quoted in Jesus’ dying words: Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.

By contrast, The Master focused on man in today’s world. In particular, ‘the relationship between man and other men’. He placed no importance at all on the spirit world. He was concerned about the real world and the obligations inherent in ‘the five relationships’ between:

1 • father and son,
2 • husband and wife,
3 • older brother and younger brother,
4 • friend and friend, and
5 • ruler and subject.

Although power was hereditary in China, Confucious stressed that the ruler should lead from the front by setting a good example to his people. This has become known as The Golden Rule or the “Do to others as you wish done to you” philosophy.

The Master’s ideal was the chun-tzu or what Westerners would call ‘the gentleman’. The chun-tzu practised daily to attain excellence in the following noble memes:

chih or integrity
i or fairness
chung or loyalty
shu or co-operation
ren or compassion.

If a ruler exemplified these virtues in all of his ‘five relationships’ then his rule would be a success and his people would be happy.

This is a very interesting political model and quite modern because the relationships are personal ones not organisational ones. Behaviour is governed by a bottom-up approach rather than imposed by a top-down one.

This approach will lend itself particularly well to peer2peer environments like the web and virtual environments like Second Life.

Young people become infected with these noble memes by imitation and the good example set by the ruler, the father, the older brother and the husband. These ideals become internalised, and if the individual practises these memes then this spreads out in a vast word-of-mouth network to infect the state as a whole.

It’s an organic model and seems to have been very successful. Throughout history foreign visitors to the vast Chinese state have noticed and commented on its familial organisation.

In China, before The Master, the state was ruled by force. Power was seized by warriors who struggled among themselves for supremacy. They ruled the other three classes – merchants, artisans and peasants – by force.

Tomb of Confucius

After Confucius there was a paradigm shift to ethical rule. The same three classes were now ruled by scholars and the Confucian ethic showed that indeed the pen can be mightier than the sword.

Confucius is still one of the most influential thinkers the world has ever known. Just imagine if Master Kung was invited as Guest of Honour at the great games in Beijing in 2008, he might indeed make the observation that, in our time, the blog is mightier than the sword.


6 thoughts on “The Lord and The Master: Jesus and Confucius

  1. There might be masters of the sword and masters of the pen. But a true master of the sword is also a true master of the pen – after all to be a true master in whatever field means to be a master of one’s soul.
    I recommend the book by William Scott Wilson
    “The lone Samurai”

  2. The bible was written by people who met people who met Jesus, in other countries many decades after it all happened. Do you seriously think they are entirely accurate? Have you never played Chinese whispers? People in the same room at the same time can have differing opinions about what they heard or witnessed. We will never know which parts of the bible are entirely accurate and which are not. But one thing is for sure. they are not ALL entirely accurate. If they are, then why is there so much variation in the facts as told in the different gospels? And why were the other gospels by the followers of the other disciples, which differed most radically from the main four, left out of the bible?

  3. That statement about only being able to make educated guesses for the New Testament is false. Manuscripts have been found to be written by Jesus’ disciple within the first century, which is closer to His life and with more variants than Shakespeare. No doubt they were accurately about Christ’s life.

  4. Michael, excellent summation and post. As you know, I just returned from Blogworld, where a gathering of 1000 odd people came together to talk about this new media.

    Everyday, I hear new examples of the “blogosphere” asserting it’s authority. Take the example of Apple, probably one of the most revered companies today. When they launched the iPhone, they sort of forgot to tell Cisco, who actually had the rights to the name “iPhone”.

    The press got wind of this and Cisco actually started to feel the backlash because of their legal pursuit against Apple for wanting to call their new product a name that legally belonged to them.

    It wasn’t until the Chief Legal Counsel decided to actually tell his side of the story, the Cisco side on one of the company’s 10 blogs. Opinion changed overnight and more people were plugged into this conversation than were interested in the stock price of Cisco.

    And another.

    One of the world’s largest suppliers of bicycle locks came unstuck recently, not because the produced a particular lock that was defective. Stuff happens. We know this. But they conservatively think they lost US$10 million in sales because when the flaw was discovered, they went and hid under a rock. They did not participate in the online discussion that was at one stage, a literal frenzy amongst the bike groupies and the blogs that they hung out in.

    And finally, you know that blogging is permanent when politicians jump in on the act. God help us all!

Leave a Reply to Lachezar Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.