Tilting at windmills redux

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

When you say Moses was a scribe, I guess you mean he took down what he heard word-for-word.

yep - forty days and forty nights on top of the mountain, G!D delivered a "lecture". the Written Torah is the lecture notes, whereas the Oral Torah includes the contents of the lecture.

I think this already came up in your debate with Bob x, but wouldn’t much of the law already be in practice? And so God’s version, given directly to Moses, would have in that sense been a ratification, a final draft?

well, of some stuff - the Oral Law about stuff like marriage (including levirate marriage), circumcision, prayers and so on would be, to your way of thinking, ratification, because it predated the giving of the Torah, but other stuff, such as many of the ethical, agricultural, sexual and cultic commandments were new and intended to be fulfilled in the land of israel.

Doesn’t this open up an uncertain intertextual realm of God/His people with highly variable lines of division?

if i understood that sentence, i might well say, er....yes?

Now I guess the presumption is that God’s people in conditions of bondage had forgotten or diluted the law and needed the refresher course of Torah, and the deeper the state of ignorance the higher would have been the scale of the event. Was Moses the bringer of the radically innovative, or was he only a Socratic midwife, facilitating the emergence of what everyone already knew?

both. on one hand he was saying "guys, it's OK, G!D wants you to keep doing x and y, that's not something you picked up in egypt, but z is new, because you're now a 'kingdom of priests and a holy nation' and you have to start imitating G!D from now on" (which is why it repeats: I Am HaShem" and "I Am Hashem your G!D" so often, that's what that refers to).

1. That oral Torah did not arrive with the written, but was elaborated later.

in many cases it *predated* the Written.

2. That Moses’ familiarity with the practices of Egyptian religion led to the strong proscription against such practices in Torah. (Otherwise, I’m not sure why you bring this in here.)

that's my interpretation, i expect i could find traditional support for that point of view without having to try too hard.

3. That the Levites mediated creation stories, etc., but then what does that mean in relation to the versions in the written Torah?

it means that the vocabulary and symbology in the Written Torah would be familiar to the people, i expect.

Also, wouldn’t these stories have been floating around the common folk, for example, Moses’ secret mother/wet nurse Jochebed?

well, remember, he's from a levite family, so she would have had more knowledge anyway.

Again, on purely scholarly principles the arguments are never-ending. The dividing line is the presence or absence of your monotheist axiom.

or, if you will, the presence or absence of the scholarly axiom that insists that all non-rational or supernatural explanations must be dismissed a priori.

But you’re only circling back to the same divide. The existence of an originating divine text is a question of belief.

well, perhaps. put it this way, the evidence that points to it being Divine for me is intensely personal and private; the only way i can back it up is by pointing to the millions of others who have come to the same conclusion, but obviously that's not "good enough" for scholars.

But this is delicate territory. As you know, generations of Pauline evangelists have used similar arguments the way emotional bullies do, to break down their victims. You don’t intend it that way, I’m sure. But I think such lines of arguments should require a special license.

i kind of agree with you, we have our own intra-evangelists, you know. the blunt answer is "i don't have to stick my head up a hippo's bottom to know i wouldn't enjoy it", but there will always be people who take advantage of one's ignorance. the key is not to be ignorant in the first place and to give some basic credence to the point of view of the articulate and sophisticated, even if you're going to disagree in the end.

Well, I agree that this fits the bill in regard to some of the evasions of New Age, and to the extent New Age largely draws its inspiration from India and the East – and obviously it does – then these evasions reflect to some degree Indian religion as well. But here again is the danger of falling into the old evangelistic canards and the usual East/West mutual incomprehension and culture war. Sure, you can say that people are drawn to Eastern religion as escape from engagement, and even from ordinary life. Some probably are. But you could just as easily say that people are drawn to Abrahamic religion because of its engagement with power, out of their will to power. And you’d be equally right, that some are.

the thing is, that not all abrahamic religion is the same. for example, the mystical tradition in judaism is far closer to india and the east, so much so that there are some authorities who point to the "gifts" that abraham gave his second family by keturah as being the origin of those strands of eastern thought that we share. in fact, i reject the notion that judaism is a "western" religion entirely; certainly it has western influences in many places, but those are largely recent by our standards - it is significant that much of the development of the mystical tradition took place in the middle east. and, of course, the kabbalah has been extensively colonised by the same sort of new agey people that are open to the apparent vagueness of eastern traditions. i say that meaning, of course, that many eastern systems may look vague, but have extremely rigorous and disciplined lifestyles attached - look at confucian ritual, or tao-influenced martial arts, or yoga!

Torah/Tanakh is vitally concerned with making distinctions, drawing dichotomies, establishing authority and with transcendent power as a guarantor of order; Sruti with making analogies, finding identities, explicating authority and with immanent power as the guarantor of order.

the mystical tradition is in fact, what squares the circle. it would be more correct to say that judaism contains within it both of these tendencies, both the rationalist precision of halakhic interpretation and discourse and the passionate emotional power of the aggadah and mystical tradition. if you want another pole to "sruti", you ought to pick western rationalism, not Torah.

So in this view the priests of empire, through their idols, created ideology avant la lettre, and ideology not just in the basic meaning of “rationalization of power” but in the sense some modern noodlers have dubbed “false consciousness”, where “idols” divert human aspiration from ultimate goods and ultimate reality and even from their own reality to serve mere earthly power, i.e., Babylon, empire.

you know what, devadatta, you really need to read rav joseph d. soloveitchik's two masterworks, "halakhic man" and "the lonely man of faith", because they give a really good typology which sounds very similar to what you're talking about, except expressed in terms of "homo religiosus" and "cognitive man" as opposed to "halakhic man", "majestic man" as opposed to "covenantal man". look him up on the web and you ought to see what i mean.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Devadatta]

Hi again:

Regarding the relationship between (let’s say) the two textual sources of Jewish historical experience on the one hand and the direct communications of God on the other I think the way you’re putting it here seems plausible in the context. But again it seems to me to open up considerable uncertainties. There’s no hard and fast distinction here between God and his people as popularly thought by many Christians. As far as that goes, there’s no simple identity either. Take the question of Moses and the practices of Egyptian religion. If there were a simple distinction between Moses and his God then his personal feelings about these practices should not have been a factor in Torah. If these practices were wrong in God’s eyes then it was His job (Job!) in Torah to say so, irrespective of the views of Moses. Of course the solution presents itself that God, cognizant of Moses’ travails in Egypt gave in Torah what Moses and his people needed, strong proscriptions against Egyptian ways. And I have no doubt that tradition could adduce similar solutions to other fuzzy borderlines between God and His people.

I guess for me this shows how genuinely personal the Jewish god really is. It’s not a question of rational demonstration but of explaining a relationship. I’ve often had the impression that for Jews God is a kind of revered uncle who lives in the flat above (for secular Jews, he’s a crazy uncle, but still family after all). For Christians, of course, God was rationalized Thomistically into a pale figure of the empyrean and personal relationship was transferred to the figure of Jesus, and certainly rationalizing tendencies later came into Judaism as well. But the bedrock in Judaism has to be the original family relationship - at least, that’s my perception from the outside.

Regarding the east/west distinction. I did put things in an over-simplified way, mostly because as usual I was trying to cover too much ground all at once. After all, who knows what tomorrow may bring! So let me try to clarify.

First, this question of early Indian influence on “western” religion and philosophy. I didn’t know that people within the tradition of Judaism point to India as well, but I do know that people have mentioned Pythagorism, the mystery cults, Neo-Platonism, Mithraism, etc., as possible results of Indian influence. And sometimes the similarities are so obvious that one would think there had to have been such influences. At the same time, it’s all very vague, there’s still no smoking gun, and there remains a kind of geographical divide between the two mental spheres.

Take Neo-Platonism, for example. Its emanationist thinking seems very close to strands of Indian thinking. At the same time, it takes a peculiarly rationalist turn quite distinct from Indian philosophy. As well, I think we have to remember that Greek and Sanskrit share deep linguistic roots. I don’t think it’s an accident that in India we find the closest parallels to the standard thought categories and tendencies of Greek thought and that India has always been seen as the tradition closest to practicing philosophy in the Greek mode. To me that suggests that the two traditions could easily arrive at similar systems in parallel, following their internal logics, which might include the idea of emanations.

But where they differ is equally instructive. Where the Greek is rational, the Indian is experiential. Where the Greek divinizes rationality, especially in Pythagorism and Neo-Platonism, the Indian is always positing some yet finer-grained experiential state; where the Greek is about axioms, the Indian is about consciousness. So it’s not surprising that Western scholars, those neo-Greeks, are forever expressing frustration with Indian thought, the way it falls constantly from the sublime to the obscure, from the essential to the seemingly pointless. From the Greek perspective, this is philosophical abuse; from the Indian, it’s simply a different game.

As for Indian influence on Judaism, I just don’t know. As with other suspected influences of India, it’s very suggestive but impossible to nail down. (You may know as well that there’s a nutty theory running around that influence runs decisively the opposite way, that Vedic religion is a distorted mirror of the Abrahamic tradition, that the goddess Saraswati is a distortion of Sarai, Brahman of Abraham! Imperial religion knows no bounds.)

Regarding the distinction I was trying to make between the respective mental cultures of Vedic and Abrahamic religion. Again, I might have left a wrong impression with my brevity. The distinction is not rational/non-rational but ideological/non-ideological. It’s true that rational and ideological thinking have a broad overlap, but ideological thinking, especially in its absolutist mode, is in effect an extrusion of political/social pressures, of the type I discussed regarding the existential dilemma of Jews under the shadow of empire. This ideological strand made for a powerful ally with Greek rationalism, decisive in what we call the “West”. In India, the rational strand found its counterpart in experientalism rather than in ideology.

Regarding Judaism as a “Western” religion. I agree, that just as Christians captured Tanakh for their own purposes, the “West” in a sense captured the meanings of Judaism for its own ideological ends. And I agree that the Kabbalah and other mystical strands show that there’s much more to Judaism than I’ve suggested here. But I go back to the idea of suffering I ended with above, which is in line with the mystical thought you speak of; all Abrahamic traditions in my view find their ultimate justification and survival value in these deep strands, wherever they originated from, and not in their surface ideologies.

I will have a look at your Rabbi Soloveitchik at a less hurred moment. (No problem, he’s in Wikipedia!)
Shanti.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Of course the solution presents itself that G!D, cognizant of Moses’ travails in Egypt gave in Torah what Moses and his people needed, strong proscriptions against Egyptian ways. And I have no doubt that tradition could adduce similar solutions to other fuzzy borderlines between God and His people.

maimonides does this quite a lot when discussing the "mishpatim" (commandments with a logical or rational basis), whilst allowing for the "huqqim" (commandments with an authoritative "because I Said so" basis) but it is helpful to note in this context the prophetic admonitions of jeremiah and others, to the effect that "G!D Cares how you behave to each other - how you sacrifice animals is neither here nor there", as well as the maxim of the talmudic sages that "G!D doesn't Care what direction you slit the animal's throat in - the sacrifices were established to purify *people*".

I’ve often had the impression that for Jews God is a kind of revered uncle who lives in the flat above (for secular Jews, he’s a crazy uncle, but still family after all).

hah, you're closer than you know. that's very much one of the ways we relate to the Divine, almost a sort of "ach, will You stop bothering us, we're doing it already!" (see the discussion about the oven of achnai) but we also have other ways of relating to G!D, depending on the context, as Ruler, Lover, Principle, Place - all of these are alluded to by the relevant Divine Names.

For Christians, of course, God was rationalized Thomistically into a pale figure of the empyrean and personal relationship was transferred to the figure of Jesus, and certainly rationalizing tendencies later came into Judaism as well.

that's true, starting with philo and other people that were influenced by plato and aristotle both first time round and second time round, the "G!D of the philosophers" has been a subject of debate for two millennia, making periodic resurgencies depending on the intellectual fashion of the day. ditto the "Infinite Divine" of the mystics, the passionate tribal Deity and the Loving Companion - all of which are well-trodden paths for not just us but other religions too; the G!D of st teresa of avila is very different from the G!D of martin luther and the G!D of pio nono. as we say, "Torah has 70 faces".

But the bedrock in Judaism has to be the original family relationship - at least, that’s my perception from the outside.

it is instructive to think of G!D as a rock star and as us being the people who get passes to the after-show party, even if not all of us have "access all areas". see also maimonides' parable of the castle in the "guide".

First, this question of early Indian influence on “western” religion and philosophy. I didn’t know that people within the tradition of Judaism point to India as well, but I do know that people have mentioned Pythagorism, the mystery cults, Neo-Platonism, Mithraism, etc., as possible results of Indian influence.

there's a spectrum. on one extreme there are the people who say "anything these guys have, we thought of first and better" and, on the other extreme, there are the people who cannot imagine that there is anything original in judaism whatsoever and that everything of ours must have been borrowed from somewhere else or a survival from some more primitive time, from the code of hammurabi to the piety of the mediaeval monastic orders. needless to say, i agree with neither, although both sometimes have a point.

At the same time, it’s all very vague, there’s still no smoking gun

except for the sort of people that think they know the answer to everything, of course.

To me that suggests that the two traditions could easily arrive at similar systems in parallel, following their internal logics, which might include the idea of emanations.

karen armstrong often says "mystics tend to agree", to which i would often add "rationalists too."

So it’s not surprising that Western scholars, those neo-Greeks, are forever expressing frustration with Indian thought, the way it falls constantly from the sublime to the obscure, from the essential to the seemingly pointless. From the Greek perspective, this is philosophical abuse; from the Indian, it’s simply a different game.

actually, this is surprisingly similar to how the greek perspective sees judaism, "ok, you have these great universal, sweeping, majestic waves of ethics, morals and logic, but everyone then ends up having four sets of cutlery and crockery and wearing leather boxes on their heads, it's mad!" non-orthodox jews tend to see it that way too, due to their comfort zone being closer to the greek. the traditional jew, of course, responds by saying "ok - we've figured all this out, but nu, now so what? how do i respond? how shall i live my life? and what shall i have for dinner?"

You may know as well that there’s a nutty theory running around that influence runs decisively the opposite way, that Vedic religion is a distorted mirror of the Abrahamic tradition, that the goddess Saraswati is a distortion of Sarai, Brahman of Abraham! Imperial religion knows no bounds.

deary me, yes, i'm familiar with the syndrome. according to this theory, i don't think anyone has ever invented anything ever.

It’s true that rational and ideological thinking have a broad overlap, but ideological thinking, especially in its absolutist mode, is in effect an extrusion of political/social pressures, of the type I discussed regarding the existential dilemma of Jews under the shadow of empire. This ideological strand made for a powerful ally with Greek rationalism, decisive in what we call the “West”. In India, the rational strand found its counterpart in experientalism rather than in ideology.

hmmm. yet i see no absence of ideology in indian thought - even non-ideology is an ideology. moreover, interpretation inevitably results in some form of emergent ideology, whether it is as benign as satyagraha or as malevolent as the mosque-razing programme of the rss.

Regarding Judaism as a “Western” religion. I agree, that just as Christians captured Tanakh for their own purposes, the “West” in a sense captured the meanings of Judaism for its own ideological ends.

indeed - viewing judaism solely through the prism of the west ignores the considerable period up until relatively recently when the centre of gravity of jewish thought was in the islamic lands of the middle east.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

maimonides does this quite a lot when discussing the "mishpatim" (commandments with a logical or rational basis), whilst allowing for the "huqqim" (commandments with an authoritative "because I Said so" basis) but it is helpful to note in this context the prophetic admonitions of jeremiah and others, to the effect that "G!D Cares how you behave to each other - how you sacrifice animals is neither here nor there", as well as the maxim of the talmudic sages that "G!D doesn't Care what direction you slit the animal's throat in - the sacrifices were established to purify *people*".

I demand mercy, not sacrifice, as Yeshua quoted. Following on what you’re saying here, it occurs to me that the persistence of sacrifice in the tradition was perhaps in part a recognition of the shortfall in the moral payments required, that in the absence of such payments some kind of compensation had to be made; hence, the sacrifice.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

hmmm. yet i see no absence of ideology in indian thought - even non-ideology is an ideology. moreover, interpretation inevitably results in some form of emergent ideology, whether it is as benign as satyagraha or as malevolent as the mosque-razing programme of the rss.

I know that “ideology” has a kind of bad smell, and I understand why you’d be wary of it. But I’ll try to clarify what I’ve been saying.

First, I should distinguish between two basic senses of the word. There’s “ideology” in the broadest sense, as the collection of notions and ideas formative, normative or constructive of a given society, and which really devolves into vague notions like “worldview” or even “folkways”. In that sense, every society is of necessity “ideological”.

But there is also “ideology” in the stricter, modern sense, which really only goes back to the 18th century, and this is a self-consciously worked out, dynamic set of ideas intended to transform society. In its origins I believe this is a peculiarly “Western” mindset, and that while it has only became fully conscious in modern times it’s biblically rooted, especially in textual sources like the Decalogue. (Notice that many societies have produced social theories, the Greeks in particular; most have some notion of divine sanctions; but no other traditional society produced such a powerful and influential fusion of these two elements, which found their effective realization in Christianity and Islam.) I would also point out that ideology in this sense is hardly purely negative; it’s not just social repression but also social reform not just authoritarian states but also movements like Abolitionism, the Suffragettes, unionism, environmentalism, the SPCA, for that matter! And aren’t these some of the first things we think about when we think of the “West”?

As for your modern day Indian examples, let’s consider the context. For centuries, India has survived the pressures of the ideological faiths of Islam and Christianity. It’s not surprising that some Indians have produced modern ideological movements of their own in defense. After all, this is part of “Westernization”, and can be charted historically. The real point is how much of traditional culture and mindset India has retained, despite these enormous pressures.

Shanti.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

I demand mercy, not sacrifice, as Yeshua quoted.

himself quoting, in turn, the prophets amos, hosea, jeremiah et al.

Following on what you’re saying here, it occurs to me that the persistence of sacrifice in the tradition was perhaps in part a recognition of the shortfall in the moral payments required, that in the absence of such payments some kind of compensation had to be made; hence, the sacrifice.

on the contrary - it was the shortfall in the moral payments that made the sacrifices so repulsive. to put it another way, it's like cheating on your wife and then expecting flowers and chocolate to heal the relationship. flowers and chocolate are all very well when you're doing all the important stuff, but they are not a substitute for a genuine love and caring.

First, I should distinguish between two basic senses of the word. There’s “ideology” in the broadest sense, as the collection of notions and ideas formative, normative or constructive of a given society, and which really devolves into vague notions like “worldview” or even “folkways”. In that sense, every society is of necessity “ideological”.

agreed.

But there is also “ideology” in the stricter, modern sense, which really only goes back to the 18th century, and this is a self-consciously worked out, dynamic set of ideas intended to transform society. In its origins I believe this is a peculiarly “Western” mindset, and that while it has only became fully conscious in modern times it’s biblically rooted, especially in textual sources like the Decalogue.

in that sense, judaism has *always* been ideological, rooted in social change and moral advancement. where i think the difference is is where the ideology is based not upon a selection of the "good" from amongst the inherent drivers of human nature, but upon theoretical utopianism, especially in cases where this is based upon faulty perceptions of these drivers, as in the case of communism (every child's second word is "mine!")

(Notice that many societies have produced social theories, the Greeks in particular; most have some notion of divine sanctions;

Divine sanction is philosophically necessary for authority in many cases where, for example, the "constitution" or "crown" is unable to function in this respect.

it’s not just social repression but also social reform not just authoritarian states but also movements like Abolitionism, the Suffragettes, unionism, environmentalism, the SPCA, for that matter! And aren’t these some of the first things we think about when we think of the “West”?

well, perhaps, but abolitionism was certainly originally a religiously inspired movement, as was much of unionism. socialism is certainly first prefigured in the law of pe'ah (leaving the corners of the field for the poor) and the injunction to oppress neither widow, orphan nor foreigner.

As for your modern day Indian examples, let’s consider the context. For centuries, India has survived the pressures of the ideological faiths of Islam and Christianity. It’s not surprising that some Indians have produced modern ideological movements of their own in defense. After all, this is part of “Westernization”, and can be charted historically.

i don't disagree, given that, as karen armstrong says, all ideological fundamentalisms are essentially modern responses to the challenge of the outside world, although this thesis is a little less tenable when it comes back to mediaeval islamic funtamentalisms like that of the almoravids and almohades.

The real point is how much of traditional culture and mindset India has retained, despite these enormous pressures.

hmm - this begins to sound like the beginning of a dialogue about "authenticity".

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Devadatta]

Hi BB.


on the contrary - it was the shortfall in the moral payments that made the sacrifices so repulsive. to put it another way, it's like cheating on your wife and then expecting flowers and chocolate to heal the relationship. flowers and chocolate are all very well when you're doing all the important stuff, but they are not a substitute for a genuine love and caring.

Interesting point. In that sense, could one say that while the Law in the first instance regulated the sacrifice, this was not its ultimate point, that the true sacrifice was raised to another level? If so, this is similar to the Indian moves as referred to in the BG to frame various practices as a kind of sacrifice, even breath control. As well, to me this points to the dreadful irony of Paul, who brings back the idea of blood sacrifice with a vengeance, and who in my view likely had a much less nuanced view of the Law than did Yeshua.

in that sense, judaism has *always* been ideological, rooted in social change and moral advancement. where i think the difference is is where the ideology is based not upon a selection of the "good" from amongst the inherent drivers of human nature, but upon theoretical utopianism, especially in cases where this is based upon faulty perceptions of these drivers, as in the case of communism (every child's second word is "mine!")

Agreed. In another thread I call this permanent revolution, and the idea that while in concrete terms revolutions tend as we know to re-establish tyranny, in metaphysical terms it’s a process of reification where a spiritual energy is recaptured in some more or less concrete form, i.e., the re-establishment of idols. In that sense, the deification of Yeshua was one of greatest reifications of all. I expect you would only go part way with me on this question of reification, but perhaps you would agree your God is fundamentally spirit, energy, act; from the opening of Genesis every word is assimilated to act, and so concretization of this spirit, conceptual or otherwise, seems to me a re-erection of idols.

hmm - this begins to sound like the beginning of a dialogue about "authenticity".

You’re right. Let’s not go there. As you know, people tie themselves in knots over these things. The truth is hopelessly mixed; authenticity is never fully recoverable. In all modesty we can only deal with the issue schematically, when we have to.

Thanks for getting back.

Shanti.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Interesting point. In that sense, could one say that while the Law in the first instance regulated the sacrifice, this was not its ultimate point, that the true sacrifice was raised to another level?

precisely. and under the first Temple regimes of the kings of israel and judah, this level became obscured. the point of it was lost. that is what the prophets were so upset about.

If so, this is similar to the Indian moves as referred to in the BG to frame various practices as a kind of sacrifice, even breath control.

precisely; as it says in hosea: "we compensate for the bulls with our lips".

As well, to me this points to the dreadful irony of Paul, who brings back the idea of blood sacrifice with a vengeance, and who in my view likely had a much less nuanced view of the Law than did Yeshua.

i don't know about that. i'm no expert on either of them. 'owevair, i would be inclined to speculate that a) the blood sacrifice stuff was available in the mystery religions that were widely practiced in the roman empire although b) the idea of the transfiguration of body and blood is, i would have thought, directly attributed to jesus himself.

in metaphysical terms it’s a process of reification where a spiritual energy is recaptured in some more or less concrete form, i.e., the re-establishment of idols.

this is precisely the definition of the genesis of idol worship that is given by maimonides.

perhaps you would agree your God is fundamentally spirit, energy, act; from the opening of Genesis every word is assimilated to act, and so concretization of this spirit, conceptual or otherwise, seems to me a re-erection of idols.

to be precise: G!D Is All. the universe of action is the one humans inhabit. of course we would suggest that nearly anything can be perverted into idol worship.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i don't know about that. i'm no expert on either of them. 'owevair, i would be inclined to speculate that a) the blood sacrifice stuff was available in the mystery religions that were widely practiced in the roman empire although b) the idea of the transfiguration of body and blood is, i would have thought, directly attributed to jesus himself.

Well, I wouldn’t want to defend this as a P.H.D. thesis either! And I suspect you’re right that the mystery religions had more to do with this “body and blood” business than did the Jewish sacrificial tradition as such.

But I reason (feebly no doubt) like this: even if we assume that Yeshua did indeed utter those famous “body and blood” words at the last supper – and from my perspective we have no assurance of that – it’s a question of a metaphor and in what sense and in what direction we take it. Paul’s doctrine of original sin, that one man, Adam, brought sin and suffering into the world, and therefore one man Jesus, must take it out again, really nails this down as an instance of blood sacrifice. Jesus suffers and dies for our sins because someone must pay the price. It’s one of the most hideous doctrines ever contrived, in my view.

Now, Yeshua certainly appeared ready to give up his life in service of the spirit of the law, to announce the kingdom and to exemplify the gospel of love, and certainly that was as spiritual and even as mystical an act one need imagine. But did he really think he was suffering and dying out of expiation, and for the disobedience of the legendary father of the human race? That he was literally a lamb led to slaughter? This I have reason to doubt.

Now, of course, Paul sprinkled plenty of lentils on the trail behind him for apologists to pick up on; so it’s a question of obedience answering disobedience, the death of old man Adam, blah blah, and you know that theologians can blah blah anything into angel dust.

But it’s lucky that Yeshua wasn’t completely swallowed up by the founding neuroses of Paul and orthodoxy, that some Christians emulate his life, and don’t dwell on absurdities around his death.

Shanti.