X Close

Jesus at the end of history For Hegel, monstrous sacrifice is never senseless

Children gather during Holy Week in Spain (CESAR MANSO/AFP via Getty Images)

Children gather during Holy Week in Spain (CESAR MANSO/AFP via Getty Images)


March 30, 2024   6 mins

The hardest word in Hegel’s notoriously difficult Phenomenology of Spirit appears in the book’s final sentence. It is not a dense new German construction, but the translation of a Hebrew place name. Or, perhaps better, of an Aramaic place name, since that is what we now call the vernacular spoken by Jesus and his contemporaries, in Galilee and Judaea, in what we now call the first century CE.

Though Hegel leaves him unnamed, it is the figure of Jesus that hovers over the conclusion of his thrilling, Romantic treatise on the human (and divine) “experience of consciousness”. For what the final sentence of The Phenomenology of Spirit tells us — and this is the book, remember, that conjures up all the spectres of Marx in 19th-century Europe, 20th-century Asia and beyond — is that the secret of human history, in all its melancholy glory, is Golgotha.

In Hegel’s mysterious vision of the end of history, history restlessly circles and progressively spirals upwards from (and towards) its spiritual core. That is the rock that the waves of Hegel’s great oceanic book break upon, again and again — “the Golgotha of absolute spirit”. Without its Golgotha, Hegel says, history “would be lifeless”. Which is also to say that, without Golgotha — whatever that is — global history would be lacking in “truth”.

How do we know this? In the original German, Hegel deploys the phrase “die Schädelstätte”, which Martin Luther, the 16th-century theological avant-gardist (and restorationist), used to Germanise a sinister Jerusalem place name, Golgotha, in his epoch-making translation of the New Testament. We read in the Gospel of Mark, for instance, that on the morning of his death, Roman conscripts brought Jesus “to the place called Golgotha, which means the place of a skull”. It is there that the Romans crucified him. And Luther’s rendering of that place — “the place of a skull” — is Schädelstätte. Three hundred years later, that is the name that Hegel bestows on the dark heart of global history. In Aramaic, it is Golgotha — and in Latin, Calvariae Locus. The place of a skull. The place where Jesus died.

If Karl Marx & Co. had remembered this, they might have known that fully liberated worldwide luxury communism was never on the cards. And if Francis Fukuyama & Bros. had remembered this, they might not have been taken in by the late-liberal fever dream of the end of history.

Whether or not we’re Hegelians, we can agree that Hegel saw better than most what was coming in his century — and is still coming in ours. Which is suffering and death, and the sublime question of what humans will do with them. What will become of us through suffering and death? What will become of us through our own Golgotha?

“Whether or not we’re Hegelians, we can agree that Hegel saw better than most what was coming in his century.”

Hegel puts it differently, and more vividly, in a manuscript of his Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. He writes that:

“Even as we look upon history as an altar on which the happiness of nations, the wisdom of states, and the virtue of individuals are slaughtered, our thoughts inevitably impel us to ask: to whom, or to what ultimate end have these monstrous sacrifices been made?”

This gloomy vision of world history can help us to decipher the last sentence of his Phenomenology. For what is history, here, but a vast zone in which “monstrous sacrifices” have been made (and are still being made, and will always be made)? And what is Hegel’s Golgotha, but the place par excellence where a “monstrous sacrifice” was made?

Yet the question formulated in Hegel’s Lectures still hangs: What are we to make of the gruesome spectacle of human history?

One of the peculiarities of this question is that the spectacle of world history is not one that we can disinterestedly observe. It can never just be an object for our “brooding reflection”, for we are all immersed in the spectacle. And history irresistibly makes something of us, too — something which Hegel ultimately calls a sacrifice. His question therefore becomes: to whom or for what are we being sacrificed? A sacrifice is not senseless. It is not lacking in intentionality, or in structure.

Hegel believes that human suffering is not without intrinsic meaning. Because of this, he places himself in line with the incomparably brilliant Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who advanced the earth and life sciences, formulated infinitesimal calculus, foreshadowed AI, promoted civilisational dialogue with China, and elaborated a radically modern, yet richly traditional metaphysics. Hegel tells us that his own philosophy can be read, like Leibniz’s, as “a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God”. He tells us, too, that he is “personally convinced” that the world is “governed by providence”. It is his “general notion of a divine world order” — burlesqued by Voltaire in his 1759 novella, Candide, or Optimism — that he shares with Leibniz.

“It is in world history,” writes Hegel, “that we encounter the sum total of concrete evil.” Needless to say, that sum is both incalculable and inexpressible. Hegel himself feels that world history presents “a most terrifying picture”. But he also concludes that the “concrete events” in history are “the ways of providence”. What he means by this is that “the history of the world is a rational process”. And what that means, for him, is that divine reason — and divine love — must obscurely be present “in everything, especially in the theatre of world history”.

How could divine love be present in the “monstrous sacrifices” that human reason rightly finds abhorrent? There is only one way, and it is what Hegel calls “the category of the negative”. The negative is, for him, precisely a category of sacrifice. “We cannot fail to notice”, he writes, “how all that is finest and noblest in the history of the world is immolated upon its altar”. The negative, then, is Hegel’s altar — his place of sacrifice. And he thinks that divine love can be present in global history, because the divine itself has been placed upon that altar. Hegel’s God is no stranger to the anguish and irrationality of the negative.

It is only through suffering — or “the labour of the negative”, as Hegel puts it in the Phenomenology’s opening pages — that a divine love could prove its “seriousness”. And where then, for him, is the place where divine love has revealed its seriousness — by actually convulsing, and dying, and “decaying” in history?

At Golgotha, at the Schädelstätte.

For Hegel, the place where Jesus died thus symbolises the essence of history — both past and future — because it is the place where we can contemplate human suffering in all its glistening horror, where it is the divine itself that is being sacrificed, and the divine itself that is dying. Only after his baptism of blood, in Hegel’s reading of the gospels, is Jesus finally transformed into the bearer (or figure) of a new and higher life.

Hegel cannot consider the rationality of history without the suffering of God. At the same time, he cannot consider the realisation of meaning in history without our suffering — which is perhaps to say, without our participation in the suffering of God. Without our Golgotha.

But Hegel’s stress on the necessity and radical meaning of human suffering does not make him — like his younger contemporary, Schopenhauer — a pessimist. It is Schopenhauer who systematises pessimism as a new style of philosophy, in conscious opposition to Hegel — generating a fierce and largely forgotten “Pessimism Controversy” (Pessimismusstreit) in 19th-century Germany. For Schopenhauer (as for Voltaire, before him), optimism is a term of abuse. In his words, the world is nothing but a blood-land of “tormented and anxious beings who survive only by devouring one another”. Where Leibniz had reasoned that ours must be “the best of all possible worlds”, Schopenhauer counters that it is certainly “the worst of all possible worlds”.

Schopenhauer is blistering in his criticisms of both Leibniz and Hegel. And yet, on the last page of his huge opus, The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer points us — much like Hegel, on the last page of his Phenomenology — to the sacred narratives of Jesus’ death. Schopenhauer tells us here, whatever we make of it, that his own theory of ethics is “in complete agreement with Christian ethics”. Furthermore, he tells us, it is the figure of “the crucified Saviour” — or perhaps, he adds, one of the outlaws crucified with Jesus — who has revealed “the inner essence of the world”.

For Hegel, the essence of history is divine reason, which must be revered. For Schopenhauer, it is an effect of demoniac will, which must be negated. The contrast is not only stark, but self-conscious. And yet, in the last pages of both their iconic 19th-century works, we find that if love is to be the secret of history (Hegel) and compassion the basis of ethics (Schopenhauer), then “the place of a skull” — the place where Jesus died — is world history’s symbolic centre. All the chaos, anguish, and destructiveness of recent months invite us to remember that.


David Lloyd Dusenbury is a philosopher and historian of ideas. His latest book, I Judge No One: A Political Life of Jesus, is out now.

DusenburyDavid

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

63 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
T Bone
T Bone
7 months ago

Hegel and Schopenhauer were Pantheists from the Hermetic tradition of Alchemy. No other religion gets infiltrated and manipulated by political charlatans. There’s a reason secular progressives have chosen Christianity to destroy…because it produces stability and progressives HATE stability.

Seriously, just leave Christians alone. If you don’t believe…then don’t believe. But this whole thing where romantic existentialists infiltrate Christianity and try to appropriate it for secular purposes just isn’t working. Its clear what you’re doing. Nobody is fooled anymore. You’ve taken all the churches you’re going to get.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
7 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

That’s essentially correct. This essay points us precisely towards the misdirection of history; history which appears to start just a few thousand years ago (i.e. recorded history) rather than our actual history which emerged over hundreds of thousands of years. In other words, i accuse the author and those to whom he pays (too much) homage: Leibniz, Hegel, Schopenhauer et al, of historical myopia.
If we in the West are now suffering from revisionism, i maintain it’s precisely because this myopia is no longer of any use to us. The learnedness which the author evinces takes us precisely nowhere. Who cares, for instance, whether Hegel maintained that “history is a rational process”? What does that actually mean, from the perspective that Hegel was able to muster, albeit with immense sophistication? Does that help us, right now, in finding our way through the present?
At least one thing is correct: that we’re all participants. We could do so much better than to concern ourselves with whether Hegel’s view is optimistic or Schopenhauer’s pessimistic. Again, i maintain that neither has relevance now. They’re examples of human characteristics but both are incomplete and reductive. History, if we’re going to discuss it with relevance to ourselves, has no such characteristics.

Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
7 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

It is always interesting to see non-Christians fumbling and grasping like the blind with the eternal truths that whisper at them from all around… John ch. 1: Christ is the organizing principle of the universe, which “became flesh” in order that he might suffer injustice and die for us — and through his resurrection, conquer the great burden of human existence, the terrible weight of eternal meaninglessness. This Easter weekend, even Hegel hears the echoes, “He is risen” — “He is risen indeed!”

Steve White
Steve White
7 months ago
Reply to  Kirk Susong

Actually his death was atonement for sin. Adam, the federal head of humanity, in an act of cosmic treason believed the deceiver and sought to be like God. So according to the covenantal probation, the day he ate that fruit he would die. God could have justly killed him and Eve then and there, but out of sheer mercy interceded and clothed them with animal skins. However death has hung over humanity since then. Christ however was the promised seed of the woman. He came and fulfilled all righteousness under the law in our nature. He therefore succeeded where Adam failed. He also died for our sins. He as the federal head of a new creation humanity died in our place as a substitute sacrifice, but even more he is a substitute in the performance of all righteousness, securing an indecfectable status of righteousness before the judgement seat of God for all who believe.

Madas A. Hatter
Madas A. Hatter
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Christ’s death was not atonement for sin. That is a distortion introduced by Paul, who was obsessed with personal sin. Christ died for two reasons. Firstly to show us that when truth and goodness is being systematically defiled, as it was by the priests of the Temple, we must take a stand and its consequences. He recognised that it was time to stop sheltering in Galilee and stand up to the evil at the centre. And, of course, he died and rose from the dead to demonstrate that ‘death hath no dominion’.

Fred Himebaugh
Fred Himebaugh
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

It’s worth remembering that Christian tradition holds that the final resting place for Adam’s bones was Golgotha and that Christ was crucified right over Adam’s grave. The skull that appears at the foot of the cross in many paintings is Adam’s.

Nathan Sapio
Nathan Sapio
7 months ago
Reply to  Fred Himebaugh

I’ve never seen the basis for that. What is clear is that David brought the skull if GOLiath of GATH to a hill outside of Jerusalem.

The symbolism there is still rich and in line with the intent of what you mention.

Martin Tuite
Martin Tuite
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

What Hegel fails to notice is that Jesus was a willing sacrifice (Mark 8:31).
Can a willing sacrifice be described as monstrous?
“Surely he took up our pain
  and bore our suffering. . . .
He was pierced for our transgressions,
  he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
  and by his wounds we are healed. . . .
The Lord has laid on him
  the iniquity of us all”
(Isaiah 53:4–6).
Jesus died to take away my (and your) sin, to lead us out of darkness and give us a new life.
Thank God that he died on a cross.

0 0
0 0
7 months ago
Reply to  Kirk Susong

It is amazing to heat Xstians so smug. Or maybe one Christian. I really don’t think any religion can solve the mess we are in.

Nathan Sapio
Nathan Sapio
7 months ago
Reply to  0 0

Maybe some self reflection is in order so as to avoid transference…

M James
M James
7 months ago

Thank you for this reflection on the meaning of sacrifice. Sacrifice literally means “to make holy”. As Leonard Foley wrote, it is an act of love through total self-offering. History has not ended. It will die and rise again continually until the end of time at God’s will. Each death is a response to a selfish and hypocritical world order. Each rising is to closer union with God through Christ.

James Simmons
James Simmons
7 months ago
Reply to  M James

Sanctify means to make holy.

Mike Doyle
Mike Doyle
7 months ago
Reply to  James Simmons

The English word “sacrifice” derives etymologically from a Latin term that means “make sacred.” per Oxford Bibliographies,  https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0109.xml

James Simmons
James Simmons
7 months ago
Reply to  Mike Doyle

That’s interesting – did not know that. Though it’s still worth noting that in the Hebrew that is not the case as the word denotes drawing near. And, of course, the discussion of Jesus as sacrifice has the Hebrew practice primarily in view (as per John, Romans and Hebrews among others).

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago

If Leibniz, Hegel, Schopenhauer & Co had paid a little more attention to Pliny* and Julian** none of this nonsense would have troubled either or us them, and we might have been on the Moon by 1492***.

(*The younger.)
(**The Apostate.)
(*** To use Christian chronology but really 2245 AUC.)

Tony Buck
Tony Buck
7 months ago

We would still be suffering and dying, though. Still fighting hate-filled wars.

Getting to the Moon hasn’t helped us one iota.

And if you applaud space travel as a great achievement of Physics, you must applaud the Hydrogen Bomb likewise.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Tony Buck

Thanks to the Nazarene & Co we ‘wasted’ a thousand years in search of ‘the holy grail’.

At least getting to the Moon was a step in the right directIon.
The triumph of Reason over Faith if you like.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago

I’m still wonder what was ir IS the point of going to the Moon? ..if indeed any human ever did? I say the jury’s still out on that one!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

It has the potential to be a great Penal Colony just as America and Australia were in the ‘good old days’.

Tony Buck
Tony Buck
7 months ago

The search for the holy grail was invented by a 12th century French poet.

For Christians, what is inside the grail – the redeeming Blood of Christ – is of infinitely greater importance.

Human achievements like getting to the Moon, are worthy of applause – but they don’t make anyone even fractionally better or happier.

Nor have anything to say in the face of Death.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Tony Buck

There is nothing to say in the face of death as after death there is nothing, and thus it is illogical to fear nothing.

David Yetter
David Yetter
7 months ago

Are you sure? Proper science in the modern sense only arose in the context of Christendom because only Christianity provided the expectation that the world is intelligible. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…” wasn’t quite enough, and neither paganism even at its most refined as Hinduism nor atheism whether pure or supplemented by the Buddha’s insights provides any such assurance, only with “In the beginning was the Logos (reason) and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God…” Somehow even though Taoism was a good start, Chinese science never fully developed. Islam got a good start, but killed off its scientific flourishing because it wasn’t Islamic enough — better the occasionalism of al Ghazali as a defense of the absolute sovereignty of Allah — an an intelligible world governed by rationally discernable laws.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  David Yetter

Yes I’m sure.
Christ and his cronies would not have lasted thirty seconds in Plato’s Academy for the simple reason that Christianity is the antithesis of Logos.

Tony Buck
Tony Buck
7 months ago

Do you, like Julian. worship the sun as a deity ?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Tony Buck

Only on Sundays.

T Bone
T Bone
7 months ago

I disagree with your underlying premise but a good joke is a good joke!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  T Bone

Thank you.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago

As my dear ol’ mum would say: Charlie, you never lost* it, did you?
* grew out of thar unfortunate trait!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
7 months ago

If you had read all four Gospels with your full attention, or even one of the synoptic three, you’d have less contempt for Jesus and his teachings. Get out your Vulgate. Put aside some of your vulgarity.

Stewart Cazier
Stewart Cazier
7 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

And if you read all the discarded gospels, you would realise how unlikely it is that the four that were retained might be true.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
7 months ago
Reply to  Stewart Cazier

They are a combination of truth and invention or rhetorical appeal to different contemporary populations, namely Jews, Romans, and Gentiles more broadly. I’ve read the Gospel Of Thomas (sayings only, no narrative) and parts of several non-canonical gospels, most of which are extant only in fragments. Have you?
I take no position on any supernatural or otherworldly claims found in any Life of Jesus: I don’t think that’s where the power dwells.

Stewart Cazier
Stewart Cazier
7 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Yes I have

Stewart Cazier
Stewart Cazier
7 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

And if you read all the discarded gospels, you would realise how unlikely it is that the four that were retained might be true.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

… not to mention Acts and Paul’s epistles

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
7 months ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I deliberately left them unmentioned because I don’t think the majority of that work holds a candle to Mark, Matthew, Luke, or even the more abstract and symbolic text of John.
I’m not saying the rest of the New Testament is minor–but it ain’t gospel. The Life and Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth–not his symbolic role as a Messiah–are of primary importance and urgency to me.

Hanne Herrman
Hanne Herrman
7 months ago

Thanks David Dusenbury for a wonderful and compelling essay about Jesus Christ. Hanne Herrman

Arthur King
Arthur King
7 months ago

Jesus’ sacrifice was voluntary. History’s sacrifices rarely are. This is an important distinction.

Tony Buck
Tony Buck
7 months ago
Reply to  Arthur King

Jesus is God as well as human being.

That’s the underlying distinction.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago
Reply to  Arthur King

Not entirely, certnot always true. In many cases the innocents refuse the opportunity to deny their opposition evil and instead, voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way when they might well have saved themselves.

Madas A. Hatter
Madas A. Hatter
7 months ago
Reply to  Arthur King

A sacrifice by a human has to be voluntary or it is just a misfortune.

Elizabeth Bowen
Elizabeth Bowen
7 months ago

“What is demanded of man is not, as some existential philosophers teach, to endure the meaninglessness of life, but rather to bear his incapacity to grasp its unconditional meaningfulness in rational terms.”

“Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’.” – Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Simon Templar
Simon Templar
7 months ago

100% Your comment has me reaching for Frankl’s book

George Dunn
George Dunn
7 months ago

Those are the words of NIetzsche in On the Genealogy of Morality.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago
Reply to  George Dunn

I seem to recall Frankl crediting Nietsche with the phrase..

AC Harper
AC Harper
7 months ago

I expect many Christians will be cheered by this article of important ideas strung together.
But if you are a nontheist like me, or a believer of a different faith, the whole article is merely language games, meaning different things in different contexts.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

I don’t think the writer said much different.. merely offered a particular interpretation but in a very thoughtful way.. that is valid surely? Your assessisunduly negative and a tad biased.

Richard Ross
Richard Ross
7 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

It’s not only the article above to which your comment applies. Substitute “World” for “article” and your comment above has even more truth in it.

David Kingsworthy
David Kingsworthy
7 months ago
Reply to  AC Harper

No, actually Christians ought to reject much of this piece, because there are no Biblical supports for contentions, and because the whole point of suffering (created by human sin!) is ignored thus misunderstanding Jesus’s sacrifice.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago

John 3:17
Rev 3:21

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
7 months ago

The story of Schopenhauer seems that of a thinker on the brow of modernity still clinging to a religious framework of explanation. By virtue of the rapidity of change in the 19th century, this became as irrelevant as attempts to justify young earth ‘theories’ in geology and biology. The facts of cycles of human suffering remain, and put paid to ideas of linear ‘progress’. You must ask “cui bono?”. In the case of Jesus (and no doubt other unrecorded Sons of Man) on the one side it would be the reputation, stability and profitability of the Roman Empire, on the other the survival or revival of a Jewish state, rooted partly in pre-Babylonian myth (as it still is today – you can edit out that bit if you consider it too sensitive), to do (rebel) or die (apocalypse). The human suffering in the 20th century beggars imagination, and that in earlier centuries is only what we know about. Yet at the same time wonders have been achieved. Nuclear arsenals and Putin notwithstanding, I don’t feel I am living in a dark age of ignorance and chaos. Humanity-through-history and all the geographical factors in which it is embedded is a complex dynamic system, and behaves accordingly.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
7 months ago

This is a different take on the concept ofJesus taking, not all the sins of the world. but taking all the suffering of the world, at the hands of all the evil in the world.. exemplifying the endless struggle in which the wrongdoers always seem to win ..at least in a materialistic way.
It also shows that suffering and dying aren’t the worst thing that can happen but ultimately, they might be instead the triumph of good over evil in the most paradoxical way possible.. Obviously, to accept that case one must believe death is not the end. It is curious that today we have the unimaginable suffering and death of innocents at the hands of the most wicked, degenerate, evil beasts in the slaughter of Palestinians at the hands of merciless IOF brutes… in the same place, the same Golgotha as Jesus was crucified.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
7 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

One needn’t believe in an afterlife proper to believe that our deeds and living examples may outlive us–for good or ill.
You seem like a passionate and well-intentioned person overall, but you go beyond fair criticism when you talk of the “most wicked, degenerate, evil beasts”. You’ve veered into “they are sub-human” and “they are uniquely wicked” talk that raises the haunting specter of outright, violence-ready antisemitism. Please reconsider what you are saying and how you’re letting it fly. Happy Easter.

Animated Stardust
Animated Stardust
7 months ago

.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
7 months ago

Happy Easter everyone. Has the author ever uttered those words?
What a grim written performance of head detached from heart, Mr. Dusenbury! The Easter message is one of triumph and renewal, not skeletal grimness or unrelieved bloody death.
There should be much more respect for the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, among believers and non-believers alike. Put aside the abstract symbology and supernatural debates more often. All least read the message and consider it in your heart before rejecting it or turning your inner sights toward a far-off Heaven. Today is about life and enduring hope, not “virtuous fatalism” or naive optimism. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you (Golgotha too).
I’ll be happy to visit my local Presbyterian church later this morning, and take in their offerings, not begrudging them the symbolism on this holiday. They have quite good music, with singalongs, and the pastor tends to focus on emulating Jesus in this life, to the greater extent that nearly all of us can and should.
Happy Easter everyone!

Linda O'Keefe
Linda O'Keefe
7 months ago

The political death of Jesus is very significant, compelling and necessary to the reading of world history. But, more crucial is the perspective from which John, self professed beloved disciple of Jesus, records in his gospel which is very different than the synoptic gospels and is recorded much later. Jesus’s life and death as a fulfillment of ancient scripture is the heart of the matter because His divinity becomes undeniable, all other readings are usually just of mastery of knowledge & exchange of historical record which are limited to behavioral modification. John who also wrote The Revelation and several short epistles brings the times of Jesus Christ from the brain into the heart and THAT is where the poverty of the human spirit begins to happen and transformation begins. God died for us. It is true, friends.

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
7 months ago

For Hegel…

Well, starting off, there’s your problem.

Hegel saw better than most what was coming in his century…

I would say that Hegel was instrumental in procuring that outcome.

David Brown
David Brown
7 months ago

Wittgenstein had the perfect riposte to these 19th century purveyors of largely unintelligible metaphysics: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent’

Hugh Thornton
Hugh Thornton
7 months ago

Jesus would indeed have known and been able to speak Aramaic. However, I am reading a scholarly work entitled “Did Jesus Speak Greek?” by G. Scott Greaves. He concludes that Jesus would also have known and spoken Greek, which was basically the lingua Franca of Galilee at that time. The author builds a very solid case and I certainly cannot outline all his arguments here. I would just note that on a few occasions in the Gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying something in Aramaic. That would hardly be worth a mention if he said everything in Aramaic. The Bible also mentions that Pontius Pilate examined Jesus. Pontius Pilate would not have know Aramaic but would have known Greek. There is also a proliferation of Greek names in the Bible, such as Andrew and Philip. I find that exciting because it means that Jesus’s words recorded in the Koine Greek New Testament may be his actual words.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
7 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Thornton

Pilate had been Prefect of Judea for about seven years by the time of the Crucifixion, plenty of time to have learnt Aramaic had he so wished.

Gregory Toews
Gregory Toews
7 months ago

It doesn’t seem likely to me that a prefect would bother to learn the language of a minor people, especially if Greek was already well known in the area.

Hendrik Mentz
Hendrik Mentz
7 months ago

Thrilling, expansive and useful as I’m struggling to understand and relate to Christianity. Thank you.

Mark Melvin
Mark Melvin
7 months ago

‘Emmanuel Kant was a real p**sant who was very rarely stable
Heidegger Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table
David Hume could out consume Schopenhauer and Hegel’… I couldn’t get any further than that I’m afraid.

William Miller
William Miller
7 months ago

The Ku Klux Klan as an intro picture? Really?