Looking for a bright light? Seeker, what's your life like?
The Da Vinci code is deciphered and explained in this article. Do you believe me? Keep reading, and you will discover even greater things than this.
In February 2025, musical artist Kendrick Lamar (whose full name is Kendrick Lamar Duckworth) will be the headline performer at the NFL Super Bowl halftime show, an annual event watched by more than 120 million people in 2024. Kendrick Lamar won the Pulitzer Prize for Music in 2018 for his Hip Hop album “DAMN” and has won 17 Grammy Awards throughout his career so far.
Lamar was recently nominated for another Grammy Award for his song “Not Like Us”, which is usually described as a “diss track”, slang for a song designed to disrespect another Hip Hop musician, in this case fellow artist Drake (whose given name is Aubrey Drake Graham). The song raises the disturbing issue of pedophilia in the music industry. Among the lyrics are: “Say, Drake, I hear you like ‘em young…” and later, Lamar classifies Drake as a “certified pedophile”.
Several days ago, Drake filed a legal action against the music Universal Music Group (UMG) which serves as the record label for not only Kendrick Lamar but also Drake himself. The filing states that UMG “designed, financed, and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral megahit with the intent of using the spectacle to harm Drake… That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.” In addition, Drake accused UMG of ‘funneling payments’ to IHeartRadio promote the song as part of an illegal pay-to-play scheme. (xxlmag dot com)
By serving as the record label for both men, it is difficult to see how UMG would avoid scrutiny of its ethics. If the song lyrics in ‘Not Like Us’ regarding Drake and his entourage are true, UMG must have turned a blind eye to pedophilia in order to promote and profit from Drake’s music. On the other hand, if the allegations asserted in the filing on behalf of Drake are true, it raises the specter that the fabrication of stories of pedophilia is being used to profit UMG through Kendrick Lamar’s work.
Shall we enter the ”Rabbit Hole” to seek out “Rabbi Tolle”?
Despite the explosive connotations of either possibility, I wish to consider a different stanza of lyrics apart from this controversy in ‘Not Like Us’ by Kendrick Lamar:
“The audience is not dumb, shape the stories how you want. Hey Drake, they’re not slow. Rabbit hole is still deep. I can go further, I promise…”
The use of the term “Rabbit Hole” was analyzed in a 4 June 2015 article by Kathryn Schulz, a staff writer at The New Yorker, who won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. She succinctly describes the marked changed in the meaning of the phrase, observing that:( https://web.archive.org/web/20220301025123/http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-rabbit-hole-rabbit-hole , excerpts shown, bold font added for emphasis)
“Of all the contributions that Lewis Carroll made to the English language—burble, chortle, gimble, galumph—by far the most useful to contemporary culture is ‘rabbit hole.’ Carroll did not, of course, invent the rabbit hole; that distinction belongs to rabbits. But, with the publication of ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,’ he did turn those holes into something that people could fall down—literally, in Alice’s case (or as literally as a fictional fall can be), figuratively for the rest of us. That was in 1865. For most of the ensuing century and a half, the phrase maintained a modest profile, always present but far from omnipresent; you might say it just burbled along. Lately, however, we have begun talking about rabbit holes incessantly…
In its most purely Carrollian sense (in the original tale), to fall down a rabbit hole means to stumble into a bizarre and disorienting alternate reality…These days, however, when we say that we fell down the rabbit hole, we seldom mean that we wound up somewhere psychedelically strange. We mean that we got interested in something to the point of distraction—usually by accident, and usually to a degree that the subject in question might not seem to merit…
How did ‘rabbit hole,’ which started its figurative life as a conduit to a fantastical land, evolve into a metaphor for extreme distraction?”…
Schulz goes on to describe how the information available on the internet leads her and others to meander aimlessly from one topic to another to another without any real resolution to her original question.
“Experiences like these are so common today that, if Carroll had never written ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ we would have needed to invent some other way to describe them. (We might have been aided in that quest by the fact that both nets and webs connote capture and entanglement. Or maybe by analogy to sinkholes we’d have linkholes, or perhaps we’d all get stuck in hypertraps.) But why, one wonders, was “rabbit hole” such a natural appropriation?
Schultz offers several interesting examples of wordplay and puns, noting the similarity of the “burrow” inhabited by rabbits and the “boroughs” inhabited by the people of New York City. As another example of wordplay combined with a description of a point she said she learned during a meandering search ‘down a rabbit hole’, is:
“Pope Gregory declared laurices (rabbit fetuses) acceptable to eat during Lent and other fast days. Oh, look, an abbot hole. Could there really be enough fast days to foster a bunny-fetus industry?”
It might be a coincidence that “bunny-fetus” sounds a bit like “bonum vitae”, which is Latin for “good life”, but with all this wordplay, who knows? Schultz goes on to add that:
“…As the phrase has grown more popular, it has acquired a largely negative undertone. By far its most famous post-‘Alice’ use appears in ‘The Matrix,’ in a context that is unmistakably dystopian. (Morpheus, on offering Neo the red pill, ‘You stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.’) Conspiracy theorists, likewise, love rabbit holes, for the suggestion of a hidden reality beneath the semblance of things, and even the cheery and the sane increasingly use the phrase to describe anything that is dark, unpleasant, or byzantine. The American criminal-justice system is sometimes characterized as a rabbit hole…”
In all of these cases—dystopia, conspiracy, bureaucracy, despair—the salient feature of the rabbit hole is that you cannot find your way out.
The modern rabbit hole, unlike the original, isn’t a means to an end. It’s an end in itself—an end without end, inviting us ever onward, urging us to keep becoming, as Alice would say, curiouser and curiouser.”
***
Schulz’s wordplay is interesting to me, particularly the use of the term “abbot hole”. It turns out that a different Kendrick Lamar song, called Auntie Diaries, also leads to wordplay, or pun, of the phrase “rabbit hole”.
Excerpts from Auntie Diaries (https://genius.com/Kendrick-Lamar-auntie-diaries-lyrics ):
My auntie is a man now… My favorite cousin said he's returning the favor, and following my auntie with the same behavior. Demetrius is Mary-Ann now…
Remember church, Easter Sunday? I sat in the pew, you had stronger faith, more spiritual when these dudes were living life straight, which I found ironic 'cause the pastor didn't see him the same. He said my cousin was going through some things. He promised the world we living in was an act on abomination. And Demetrius was to blame.
I knew you was conflicted by the feelings of preacherman, wondering if God still call you a decent man.
Still, you found the courage to be subservient just to anoint until he singled you out to prove his point, saying: “Demetrius is Mary-Ann now. Church, his auntie is a man now.” It hurt you the most 'cause your belief was close to his words.
Forcing me to stand now -I said, "Mr. Preacherman, should we love thy neighbor? The laws of the land or the heart, what's greater? I recognize the study she was taught since birth, but that don't justify the feelings that my cousin preserved.”
The building was thinking out loud, bad angel. That's when you looked at me and smiled, said, “Thank you.” The day I chose humanity over religion…
Those who have had the opportunity to read the previous Way Out Substack article, “Exposing the Machiavellian Solution” ( https://thewayout.substack.com/p/exposing-the-machiavellian-solution ) may recognize the dialectic theme which Kendrick Lamar describes in Auntie Diaries. In that article, Julie Roys and Caleb Campbell are on the side aligned with Kendrick Lamar while James MacDonald ‘s role parallels that of Kendrick Lamar’s “preacherman”. The essential point of that article is that both sides of the argument are controlled by in a Machiavellian Deception (a manipulation of a Hegelian Dialectic in social or scientific discourse). In the same article, the use of transsexual identification to split Christian churches is implied by the phrase in an analysis of an essay titled “False Cross” on the “Go To Togo” weblog ( https://web.archive.org/web/20240608005147/https://kfabertogo.blogspot.com/2020/12/the-false-cross.html ): “We are becoming no Church at all if we look at others on the road behind us and think ‘they (Lamar’s preacher-man and Reverend MacDonald) probably don’t follow Jesus at all.’ Or rather, if we look at those ahead of us and think, ‘maybe I (Kendrick Lamar) am not a follower of Jesus since I don’t seem to be as far along as him/her (Julie Roys, Demetrius/Mary-Ann).’” The Way Out substack article puts forth an argument that the overarching goal of this Machiavellian Deception is to destroy Christian churches and Christianity itself.
The introduction to Auntie Diaries is described by Daric L. Cottingham in an 18 May 2022 article, as follows ( via https://www.vox.com/culture/23101387/kenrick-lamar-autie-diaries-transphobic-morale-big-steppers ) :
“At the beginning of ‘Auntie Diaries,’ Lamar repeats, ‘Heart plays in ways the mind can’t figure out,’ followed by spiritual teacher and No. 1 New York Times bestselling author Eckhart Tolle narrating, “This is how we conceptualize human beings.’ This intro gives a disclaimer that the track will tell the story of how Lamar grew up and learned how to conceptualize the queer people in his family while in a religious environment that condemned them.”
In the Gospel of John (New America Standard Bible), we find the following (with the names of John the Baptist and Jesus inserted in place of pronouns to clarify context):
John 1:37-38 And the two disciples heard John the Baptist speak, and the followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and said to them, “What do you seek?” And they said to Him, “Rabbi (which means teacher), where are You staying?”
If we were to likewise apply the term ‘Rabbi,’ in the sense of “spiritual teacher”, to Eckhart Tolle, we could express the outcome as ‘Rabbi Tolle’, which is a homonym of “rabbit hole” or-depending on pronunciation-“rabbit holy”. Isn’t it a shame that Schulz somehow missed this rather obvious play on words for her New Yorker article.
Background on the famous author is given by ( https://www.theage.com.au/world/why-now-is-bliss-20030929-gdwfir.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true ) with excerpts here:
“For the best part of two years in the early 1980s a man in his mid-30s would sit on a park bench in Russell Square, central London, and in a state of deep bliss watch the world go by….
Brought up near Cologne in Germany as Ulrich Tolle, he had a miserable childhood…
But ‘suffering from depression, anxiety and fear’, he started ‘searching for answers to life’. Believing these lay in philosophy and literature, he took evening classes, and then went on to King’s College, London. He was 27. ‘For a moment I thought, ‘I’ve finally made it’. And then after a few weeks I got depressed again.’
One night shortly after his 29th birthday, Tolle says he was in a state of suicidal despair. ‘I couldn’t live with myself any longer. And this question arose without an answer: who is the ‘I’ that cannot live with the self? What is the self? I felt drawn into a void. I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved.’
He pauses and reflects. ‘The next morning I woke up and everything was so peaceful. The peace was there because there was no self. Just a sense of presence or ‘beingness’, just observing and watching.’ He laughs lightly. ‘I had no explanation for this.’
In his mid-30s he lost interest in research and abandoned academia, drifting for two years, staying with friends or occasionally in a Buddhist monastery, sitting on park benches and sleeping rough on Hampstead Heath. His family thought him ‘irresponsible, even insane’.
It was, though, after this “lost” period that people — former Cambridge students, those he met by chance, friends — started to ask Tolle questions about his beliefs.”
The description given by Eckhart Tolle of his spontaneous single-night experience is remarkably similar to the ‘Night of Fire’ described by 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal when he was nearly the same age (30) as Tolle, with one very important difference. See if you can detect it from this excerpt from “What Blaise Pascal Saw In A November Night Of Fire That Inaugurated A Year Of Grace” (https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/23/blaise-pascal-saw-november-night-fire-inaugurated-year-grace/ by Midge Fusselman, 23 November 2017) quotes Blaise Pascal, as follows:
“From about half past ten at night until about half past midnight, FIRE.
GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob not of the philosophers and of the learned. Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace. GOD of Jesus Christ. My God and your God. Your GOD will be my God. Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD. He is only found by the ways taught in the Gospel. Grandeur of the human soul. Righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you. Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have departed from him: They have forsaken me, the fount of living water. My God, will you leave me? Let me not be separated from Him forever. This is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and the one that you sent, Jesus Christ. I left Him; I fled Him, renounced, crucified. Let me never be separated from Him. He is only kept securely by the ways taught in the Gospel: Renunciation, total and sweet. Complete submission to Jesus Christ. Eternally in joy for a day’s exercise on the earth. May I not forget your words. Amen.”…
The article continues:
“Bertrand Russell called this renunciation ‘philosophical suicide.’ Friedrich Nietzsche called Pascal ‘the most instructive victim of Christianity.’ By contrast, Pascal’s sister and hagiographer, Gilberte, who first related the renunciation, regarded it as a triumph of faith over the illusions of this world.”
One might interpret Eckhart Tolle’s description of his one-night spontaneous experience as a de-Christianized version of Blaise Pascal’s ‘Night of Fire’.
According to a “Eckhart Tolle – An Exclusive Interview” (at https://www.positivelife.ie/2011/11/eckhart-tolle/ published 6 November 2011):
“Some time after this ‘inner transformation, Tolle changed his first name from Ulrich to Eckhart following a dream in which he saw books lying around. On the cover of one was the name Eckhart and he knew he had written it. By coincidence, he bumped into an acquaintance, a psychic, a few days later who, for no apparent reason, called him Eckhart! Having become a completely different person he was ready to relinquish the name Ulrich and the unhappy energy the name held for him.”
This interview suggests that it was a coincidence that Tolle happened to choose a new first name which matches the last name of “a 14th century Dominican friar famous for his popular sermons on the direct experience of God”, named Meister Eckhart. Perhaps it is also a coincidence that “20th-century philosophers Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre were inspired by Meister Eckhart’s beliefs about the self as the sole basis for action.” (from https://theconversation.com/why-a-14th-century-mystic-appeals-to-todays-spiritual-but-not-religious-americans-101656 )
Eckhart Tolle authored “A New Earth” which was promoted by Oprah Winfrey in 2008 (from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/eckhart-tolle-this-man-could-change-your-life-850872.html ):
“‘My favourite quote is in the first chapter,’ says Winfrey during one of these webinars. ‘Man made God in his own image. The eternal, the infinite and the unnameable reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as my God or your God.’
Confused? Most of Christian America seems to be. On an episode of her chat show, Oprah mused that Jesus ‘cannot possibly be the only way to God’. Accusations immediately flew that Winfrey, who grew up a member of the Baptist Church, had rejected Jesus in favour of the New Age ‘hocus-pocus’ of Eckhart Tolle…
Tolle's theories are certainly seen by many as profoundly non-Christian, even though Tolle often quotes from the Bible. His idea is that our true selves are the formless Consciousness, which is Being, which is God. We are all One, and thus we are all God.”
The appearance of Eckhart Tolle on Oprah Winfrey’s show corresponded to massive book sales (per https://www.today.com/popculture/self-help-author-tops-s-book-club-sales-list-wbna43109709 , 20 May 2011 by Hillel Italie )
“Congratulations, Eckhart Tolle. You topped the list of the Oprah Winfrey book club’s biggest sellers of the past decade. Nielsen BookScan, which tracks non-e-book sales, said that Oprah Winfrey's choice of self-help favorite ‘A New Earth’ by Eckhart Tolle in 2008 led to around 3.4 million copies sold… Winfrey was a guaranteed hit maker, but the Nielsen numbers show a surprisingly erratic pattern of sales, even from book to book.”
***
A lengthier example of the tie between Oprah Winfrey’s show and the success of Eckhart Tolle is illustrated (at http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/awaken-your-spirit_1/all , published 9 June 2008) in an article titled “Awaken Your Spirit”.
“In January 2008, Oprah announced her 61st Oprah's Book Club selection, A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle. Unlike past selections, this book isn't a novel or a memoir. In fact, Oprah called it her boldest choice yet. ‘Being able to share this material with you is a gift and a part of the fulfillment of my life's purpose," she said. ‘It was an awakening for me that I want for you too.’
To bring Eckhart's spiritual teachings to readers around the world, Oprah teamed up with the author for the first live, interactive Web series in Oprah Show history. Every Monday, people come together in the Oprah.com online classroom to discuss the chapters' themes and ask questions.
The 10-part series kicked off on March 3, 2008, and since then, Oprah says it's all she wants to talk about. ‘It's just the most exciting thing I've ever done,’ she says. ‘Millions of people around the world have begun experiencing A New Earth for themselves and are awakening to the possibilities of their lives.’
During the classes, Oprah says she and Eckhart have touched on topics like how to quiet the mind, how to put the ego in check and how to be fully present in the moment. "The one thing I know for sure is that you cannot even begin to live your best life without being connected to your spirit," she says. New Earth students from as far away as Iraq and Australia are joining Oprah to continue the conversation about her favorite topic…”
The article then provides several testimonials of Eckhart Tolle’s guidance. The first was from a married couple losing their wealth. The wife “says the author said something that saved her”:
‘For many people, that's a very important lesson when suddenly they do lose something,’ Eckhart said. ‘It can be a wonderful spiritual lesson. Then perhaps you suffer, and then your attachment gets broken, and suddenly, you go beyond the attachment. There have been people who have lost everything and suddenly become free of the ego because the ego had nothing left to identify with.’”…
The second story described how a young woman lost weight following the advice of Eckhart Tolle:
“…reading Eckhart's book and taking the Web class has helped her let go of the need to be skinnier—or anything ‘er’—than others. "[I realized] I just could be present in my own life and be where I was and not be worried about how I compared to other people,’ she says.”…
The next endorsement of Tolle’s work was from celebrity actor, Jim Carrey, who incidentally starred in the movie called The Truman Show, among other movies:
“Comedian Jim Carrey may be known for his hilarious antics, but he's serious about the lessons in A New Earth. ‘Eckhart's philosophy is basically about the idea that the present moment is all that we have’ he says. ‘It's all there is and all there ever will be.’”…
Be aware of the subtext of the next testimonial:
Eckhart isn't the only spiritual thinker encouraging people to explore their true callings. After every Web class, Elizabeth Lesser, author of The Seeker's Guide, answers more reader questions on her Oprah Radio show.
As the co-founder of Omega Institute, America's largest adult education center focusing on health, wellness, spirituality and creativity, Elizabeth has studied and worked with leading figures in the fields of healing and spiritual development for decades. ‘[Omega Institute] is one of the premiere centers for spiritual growth and healing in the United States,’ Oprah says.Every week, Elizabeth hears from a diverse group of readers, many of whom want to know—will A New Earth interfere with their religious beliefs?
Elizabeth says the teachings in this book are not part of another belief system. In fact, she compares the lessons to the honey in your tea or sugar in your coffee. ‘It's really a sweetener,’ she says. ‘If you are a religious person, and you practice ... being fully present and alive in the moment, and let's say your moment is church or the mosque or temple. Wow, that's just going to make it even better.’…
Later in the article, Elizabeth Lesser adds:
“‘We somehow sense that there's something more, that we came from somewhere, that we're going somewhere. This journey we're on in life is really an eternal journey. Religions grew up around those deep questions.’
Elizabeth wasn't always connected to her spiritual self. As a child, she says she had a premature terror of death and was neurotically obsessed with where she would go when she died.
When she was in her mid-20s, Elizabeth had a defining spiritual moment, which she shares in the May 2008 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine. The moment occurred as she sat at the bedside of a close friend who was dying from cancer. ‘I sort of followed her breathing out, and as she took her last breaths, I sort of went a little ways with her.’ Elizabeth says. ‘It was in that moment, I really had something that you can hardly describe...some miraculous moment where I really got in touch with my eternal soul.’”
By dropping some association of herself as only her body, Elizabeth says she was able to go a little ways with her friend as she passed away. ‘That really set me on my path,’ she says…
Again, consider the subtext of the next testimonial:
Margit is a lay minister from Texas who says she's changed the way she teaches after reading A New Earth. She says pages 70 and 71, where Eckhart writes about a Zen master watching an archery competition, provided her a deeper understanding of her faith. In the story, a man is struggling to win a competition, but the Zen master says it is the man's need to win that drains him of his power. During the discussion of Chapter 3, Eckhart explained, "So his attention is not totally in the now. Because to have mastery in any endeavor, whatever it is, you need to be total in what you do."
A New Earth has also shown Margit a different way of looking at Jesus Christ. ‘I've always tried to find a deeper inner connection with the purpose that Christ had here on earth,’ Margit says. ‘All my life, I thought it was just for him to die on the cross for my sins. But I now recognize that Jesus actually taught me Christ consciousness. To be fully human is to be Christ-like.’
Remaining testimonials for Eckhart Tolle include a cancer victim confronting death along with celebrities Jenny McCarthy and Kidada Jones who was engaged to be married to hip hop musical artist Tupac Shakur when he was murdered in Las Vegas in 1996.
“One of the greatest wisdoms Jenny McCarthy says she's gotten out of reading A New Earth is the ability to find peace. ‘The only peace you can ever find is in the now. In this moment right here. As soon as my thoughts go out to tomorrow—I'm worried about this bill I have and I need to pay off, or my mortgage, or Evan's behavior or medicines—I am unconscious,’ she says. ‘If I come right back to the present, which is me sitting in this chair and I'm talking to you, there's peace.’”
Kidada Jones, daughter of legendary music producer Quincy Jones, asked a question that resonated with many people. ‘This book hits me really, really deep in my heart, and I know it to be the truth, but I have such resistance. And I feel like if everything in form is an illusion, it feels really disenchanting…’”
The next-to-last testimonial in the article is offered as follows:
“US Army Captain Mason Weiss says reading A New Earth has helped him cope with the stresses of war. ‘My mom gave it to me to read before I came here and, like I said, with the recent fighting that's going on, I've realized at any moment—not to sound melodramatic—but I could be casualty number 4,003 or 4,004. And that can drive you crazy," he says…”
[To understand the motivation for the (added) bold font, see https://freemasonryfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/10/happy-new-year-its-6022-am.html ]
Many of the testimonials are from individuals who wish to re-vector religious belief in a particular direction. The majority of the others have disproportionately dealt with death and despair. My sense is that these are not generally topics which sell books, even self-help books. I cannot help but wonder if Eckhart Tolle’s book sales might have been manipulated in a fashion similar to what Drake alleges occurred for the Kendrick Lamar song “Not Like Us”. Is it possible that book sales were artificially increased through purchases by wealthy elite organizations in order give Eckhart Tolle’s work the appearance of having grass-roots support?
Incidentally, in the same time frame another “spiritual figure” gained support from Oprah Winfrey and other celebrities: . He was recently in the news (see https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/07/oprahs-faith-healer-get-99-years-for-raping-8-girls-and-women-allegedly-600-more-victims/ , “Oprah’s faith healer get 99 years for raping 8 girls and women; allegedly 600 more victims”, 14 July 14 2023, by Timothy Frudd), and an excerpt is below:
“João Teixeira de Faria, a popular Brazilian faith healer who was formerly touted by Oprah Winfrey, received a 99-year prison sentence Monday for multiple accounts of rape and sexual abuse… the sentence delivered by judge Marcos Boechat Lopes Filho is the result of charges regarding eight victims of sexual abuse during spiritual consultations with Faria between 210 and 2018…
The Western Journal reported that Faria, known as “João de Deus” or “John of God,” gained international fame for his alleged faith healing abilities, garnering support and admiration from celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, former President Bill Clinton, former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, actress Shirley MacLaine, and model Naomi Campbell.
In 2012, Winfrey visited Faria, recording an interview that aired in 2013. At the time of the interview, the popular show host described Faria as “inspiring.”
***
In 2010, the Hollywood Reported reported a story titled “Lionsgate takes trip down ‘Rabbit Hole’: Rabbit hole movie” ( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/lionsgate-takes-trip-down-rabbit-27939/ by Gregg Kilday, The Associated Press, September 16, 2010), and a few excerpts are given here:
“In a move that injects a new contender into this year's Academy Awards race, Lionsgate has picked up North American rights to John Cameron Mitchell's ‘Rabbit Hole,’ starring Nicole Kidman. The movie will be released this year, and based on positive reactions at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it had its world premiere, that should make it a player this awards season.
Directed by Mitchell and adapted for the screen by David Lindsay-Abaire from his play, the movie, which is in the vein of domestic dramas like ‘Kramer vs. Kramer’ and ‘Ordinary People,’ stars Kidman and Aaron Eckhart as parents mourning the death of a child and attempting to come to terms with their grief.
Dianne Wiest plays Kidman’s mother, and Kidman, Wiest and Eckhart have all been lauded for their awards-worthy performances. The play, first produced in 2006 in New York, earned a Pulitzer Prize, and a Tony for Cynthia Nixon, who played the Kidman part.
The film version was produced by Olympus Pictures, Bloosom Films and Odd Lot Entertainment. Producers are Leslie Urdang, Dean Vanech, Kidman, Per Saari and Gigi Pritzker, with Daniels Revers, Bill Lischak, Linda McDonough and Brian O’Shea as exec producers.”
The trailer for the movie is linked, and the Wikipedia for the movie Rabbit Hole describes the beginning and end of the movie as follows:
“The 4-year-old son of Rebecca (played by Nicole Kidman) and Howie (played by Aaron Eckhart) is killed in a car accident when he runs out into the street after his dog….
The film ends with Becca and Howie sitting in their garden alone, staring into space… They hold hands affectionately as they continue to stare into space.”
The focus on death and despair seems and subsequent resolution by the nothingness of blissfully “staring into space” at the conclusion of the movie “Rabbit Hole” sounds quite similar to what Eckhart Tolle, or perhaps should I say “Rabbi Tolle”, did on his park bench. In turn, the description of the term “rabbit hole” given by Kathryn Schulz, included, “despair—the salient feature of the rabbit hole is that you cannot find your way out.”
Is all of this really just a series of coincidences?
The “Rabbit Hole” leads to the Pritzker family
Gigi Pritzker, listed as one of the producers of the movie Rabbit Hole, is part of the Pritzker family, which in 2018 according to: ( https://www.celebritynetworth.som/articles/billionaire-news/how-the-pritzers-became-one-of-the-wealthiest-families-on-the-planet-with-a-combined-net-worth-of-33-5-billion/ ) was said to be the:
“…15th wealthiest family in the world, with a combined $33.5 billion net worth. A.N. Pritzker was the son of Ukrainian immigrants. He began investing in real estate and companies in trouble while he worked for [the law firm of his father (Nicholas Jacob Pritzker)]. Those original investments started the fortune of one of America's oldest dynasties. The modern Pritzker family fortune is tied to the Hyatt Hotel chain and the Marmon Group, a conglomerate of industrial service and manufacturing company which was sold to Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Past holdings have included the Superior Bank of Chicago (which collapsed in 2001), Braniff airlines, McCall's magazine, the Trans Union credit bureau, and Royal Caribbean cruise line…
The Pritzker family is based in Chicago and has 11 billionaire members. Many still have stakes in the publicly traded Hyatt Hotel chain. Only Thomas, the hotel's executive chairman still works for the company. The rest of the family has mainly diversified after spending most of the 2000s fighting over various family trusts.
A.N. "Abram Nicholas" Pritzker was born January 6, 1896. He was the son of Ukrainian Jewish immigrants who moved to Chicago from Kiev in 1881. His father Nicholas worked as a pharmacist and later as an attorney. A.N. graduated from Harvard Law School and joined his father's law firm, Pritzker & Pritzker, along with his brothers Harry and Jack…
A.N. and his wife Fanny had three children: Jay, Robert, and Donald. Jay Pritzker was admitted to the University of Chicago at the age of 14. He graduated from Northwestern University School of Law in 1947…
By the time of his death in January 1999, Jay Pritzker had built an empire of more than 200 companies with $15 billion and a network of 1,000 family trusts. Jay had told his family that the family trusts were not to be broken up until the law governing trusts required it—which was estimated to be 2042. He and his wife Cindy had five children: Nancy (who committed suicide in the early 1970s), Thomas, John, Daniel, and Jean "Gigi"…
The Pritzker family counts among its ranks, the first transgendered billionaire. Jennifer Pritzker was born James in 1950 to Audrey and Robert Pritzker. Pritzker enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1974. She served at Fort Bragg, North Carolina in the 82nd Airborne Division. Jennifer attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel during her 11 years of active duty.”
The present governor of the US state of Illinois is J.B. Pritzker, the son of Donald Pritzker and thus the cousin of both Gigi Pritzker and Jennifer Pritzker.
***
In a 14 June 2022, Tablet Magazine published an article by Jennifer Bilek titled “The Billionaire Family Pushing Synthetic Sex Identities (SSI): The wealthy, powerful, and sometimes very weird Pritzker cousins have set their sights on a new God-like goal: using gender ideology to remake human biology”. The article (at https://tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers ) is highly detailed and worth your time to read fully. A few excerpts include:
“One of the most powerful yet unremarked-upon drivers of our current wars over definitions of gender is a concerted push by members of one of the richest families in the United States to transition Americans from a dimorphic definition of sex to the broad acceptance and propagation of synthetic sex identities (SSI). Over the past decade, the Pritzkers of Illinois, who helped put Barack Obama in the White House and include among their number former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, current Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and philanthropist Jennifer Pritzker, appear to have used a family philanthropic apparatus to drive an ideology and practice of disembodiment into our medical, legal, cultural, and educational institutions.
I first wrote about the Pritzkers, whose fortune originated in the Hyatt hotel chain, and their philanthropy directed toward normalizing what people call ‘transgenderism’ in 2018. I have since stopped using the word ‘transgenderism’ as it has no clear boundaries, which makes it useless for communication, and have instead opted for the term SSI, which more clearly defines what some of the Pritzkers and their allies are funding—even as it ignores the biological reality of ‘male’ and ‘female’ and ‘gay’ and ‘straight.’
The creation and normalization of SSI speaks much more directly to what is happening in American culture, and elsewhere, under an umbrella of human rights. With the introduction of SSI, the current incarnation of the LGBTQ+ network—as distinct from the prior movement that fought for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, and which ended in 2020 with Bostock v. Clayton County, finding that LGBTQ+ is a protected class for discrimination purposes—is working closely with the techno-medical complex, big banks, international law firms, pharma giants, and corporate power to solidify the idea that humans are not a sexually dimorphic species—which contradicts reality and the fundamental premises not only of “traditional” religions but of the gay and lesbian civil rights movements and much of the feminist movement, for which sexual dimorphism and resulting gender differences are foundational premises.
Through investments in the techno-medical complex, where new highly medicalized sex identities are being conjured, Pritzkers and other elite donors are attempting to normalize the idea that human reproductive sex exists on a spectrum. These investments go toward creating new SSI using surgeries and drugs, and by instituting rapid language reforms to prop up these new identities and induce institutions and individuals to normalize them. In 2018, for example, at the Ronald Reagan Medical Center at the University of California Los Angeles (where the Pritzkers are major donors and hold various titles), the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology advertised several options for young females who think they can be men to have their reproductive organs removed, a procedure termed ‘gender-affirming care.’…
(Jennifer) Pritzker also created the first chair in transgender studies at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. The current chair, Aaron Devor, founded an annual conference called Moving Trans History Forward, whose keynote speaker in 2016 was the renowned transhumanist, Martine Rothblatt, who was mentored by the transhumanist Ray Kurzweil of Google. Rothblatt lectured there on the value of creating an organization such as WPATH to serve “tech transgenders” in the cultivation of “tech transhumanists.” (Rothblatt’s ideology of disembodiment and technological religion seems to be having nearly as much influence on American culture as Sirius satellite radio, which Rothblatt co-founded.) Rothblatt is an integral presence at Out Leadership, a business networking arm of the LGBTQ+ movement, and appears to believe that ‘we are making God as we are implementing technology that is ever more all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful, and beneficent.’…
On June 30, 2019, Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued Executive Order 19-11, titled Strengthening Our Commitment to Affirming and Inclusive Schools, to welcome and support children with manufactured sex identities. A task force was established to outline statewide criteria for schools and teachers that recommended districts amend their school board policies ‘to strengthen protections for transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students.’…
While many Americans are still trying to understand why women are being erased in language and law, and why children are being taught they can choose their sex, the Pritzker cousins and others may be well on their way to engineering a new way to be human. But what could possibly explain the abrupt drive of wealthy elites to deconstruct who and what we are and to manipulate children’s sex characteristics in clinics now spanning the globe while claiming new rights for those being deconstructed? Perhaps it is profit. Perhaps it is the pleasure of seeing one’s own personal obsessions writ large. Perhaps it is the human temptation to play God. No matter what the answer is, it seems clear that SSI will be an enduring part of America’s future.”
Governor J.B. Pritzker also imposed lockdowns on hospitals, nursing homes, and churches. He also mandated Covid vaccines (described by some as gene therapy) in Illinois.
“Two Chicago area Christian congregations have asked a federal appeals court to overturn Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s restrictions on religious services during the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing Pritzker’s impose unconstitutional limits on churches that he has placed on no other activities or organizations deemed ‘essential’ under his emergency executive orders. On May 26, attorneys for the Romanian American churches – Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church in Chicago and Logos Baptist Ministries in Niles – filed a brief with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. The brief comes as the churches say they remain the targets of Pritzker and Chicago City Hall, who they say have threatened them with police action and citations, potentially up to closure of the church buildings themselves.
‘With each passing Sunday, Churches are suffering under the yoke of the Governor’s unconstitutional Orders prohibiting Churches from exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs of assembling themselves together to worship God,’ the churches wrote in their appellate brief.
They argue that, while Pritzker has designated free exercise of religion an ‘essential’ activity and churches essential organizations under his so-called stay at home orders, the governor has unconstitutionally singled out worship services for assembly size limitations placed on no other ‘essential’ businesses, such as supermarkets or big box retail stores.
Further, they noted, this targeted shutdown of in-person worship services conflicts with Pritzker’s decision to place no similar gathering limitations on other church functions, including gatherings for the purposes of food distribution and other charitable endeavors. Pritzker, they argued, has ‘considered nothing but a complete prohibition beyond the 10-person limit for religious worship, while expansively exempting numerous other ‘Essential Activities.’
‘The Governor has not and cannot state why or how crowds and masses of persons at a warehouse or supercenter store are any less ‘dangerous’ to public health than a responsibly distanced and sanitized worship service, yet the Governor exempted the non-religious Essential Activities from the 10-person limit unique to worship services,’ they argued in the brief. The churches filed suit in early May in the wake of Pritzker’s decision to extend his stay at home order until the end of the month. The governor has indicated he intends to extend the order again, though with modifications under his so-called Restore Illinois plan. That plan, which Pritzker said has been drafted in accord with ‘data and science,’ is meant to guide the reopening of Illinois’ economy and social networks as the state continues to grapple with the spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19…”
***
In spring of 2020, at a time when most hospitals and nursing home facilities barred hospital visitors, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker “quietly issued an emergency order granting Illinois nursing homes and hospitals a broad swath of legal immunities for injuries or deaths from negligence.” (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210929002615/https://chicagoreader.com/news-politics/the-problem-with-pritzkers-pandemic-immunity-orders/ by Jacqueline Stevens, 12 June 2020)
“Law school professors Nina Kohn and Jessica Roberts have published criticisms of similar orders in other states. They say the Illinois order’s breadth is unusual, unnecessary, and likely harmful. After reviewing EO 2020-19, Kohn, David M. Levy Professor of Law at Syracuse University College of Law, said, ‘Granting long-term care facilities immunity from negligence claims is not something you would do if you truly care about residents of long-term care facilities.’…
Plaintiff attorneys I interviewed were hopeful judges would share their view that the order is ambiguous and rule based on what the lawyers believed to be the governor’s intent to cover only COVID patients, and not the order’s capacious language that provides immunities for negligence leading to non-COVID injuries and deaths.
An official on the governor’s staff familiar with the order’s drafting, interviewed after I spoke with the lawyers, said that Pritzker did indeed intend to give health providers immunities for certain non-COVID mishaps. The official, who requested anonymity, said the goal was to give hospitals providing treatment that injured or killed a non-COVID patient a defense for injuries or deaths caused by the redistribution of staff and resources to provide the state assistance with COVID care.
In other words, if someone dies because a CT scan for a brain tumor is improperly performed or analyzed in a hospital that claims COVID-related stress or stretched resources from providing COVID care, the orders promise the hospital a possible get-out-of-accountability card.
Roberts, Leonard H. Childs Chair in Law and professor of medicine at the University of Houston Law Center, points out that other states providing immunities did so much more sparingly. “Pennsylvania says immunity does not extend to professionals providing non-COVID care,” she said, a specific restriction that would prohibit the immunities Pritzker is providing to hospitals in Illinois…”
The story describes the Faith Heimbrodt, 49, whose mother died in the nursing home.
“She decided she just had to see her mother, even though the Bria nursing home in Geneva had been prohibiting visits due to COVID-19... A few hours later, Heimbrodt donned gloves, a respirator, and a hazmat suit and entered the facility… Heimbrodt sat next to her mother for two hours. She saw the shallow breathing and even through her face mask noticed sores on the side of her mother’s mouth, suggesting dehydration. The next day Heimbrodt called and was told liquids would pool in Carol’s lungs and had been withheld. ‘I asked, ‘When was the last time you gave my mom water?’ They could not answer that.’
The facility refused to hook up Carol to an IV, but assured Heimbrodt someone would squeeze water into Carol’s mouth from a sponge. Carol had a do-not-resuscitate order. ‘I wasn’t looking for a ventilator,’ Heimbrodt said. ‘I was asking for humane treatment. When someone is dehydrated, you give them fluids. How many days can you live without water? Three?’
The next day, April 24, Faith heard from the facility about the results from their first COVID-19 tests: 19 residents and 24 staff had infections. According to the Geneva Bria Health Services administrator, Patti Long, Carol had not been tested because she lacked COVID-19 symptoms. On April 25, while Heimbrodt was on the phone with a hospice nurse procured from an outside agency, another nurse walked in. “She died,” Heimbrodt heard the nurse say.
In August 2023, a judgment was rendered by Justice Hutchison in the Appellate Court in the Second District of Illinois for the lawsuit brought forth by Faith Heimbrodt and four other plaintiffs. The judgment was in favor of the nursing home facility.
“The nursing home sought immunity from the decedents’ negligence claims under an executive order issued by Governor J.B. Pritzker during the pandemic’s beginning. The parties presented a question to the circuit court, which was then certified for interlocutory review, asking whether Executive Order No. 2020-19 provides ‘blanket immunity for ordinary negligence [claims] to healthcare facilities that rendered assistance to the State during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the reasons explained below, we modify the question and answer ‘yes.’
***
Governor J.B. Pritzker also mandated the Covid vaccine (gene therapy) (as reported by https://web.archive.org/web/20211112141745/https://www.illinoispolicy.org/pritzkers-choice-get-covid-19-shot-or-lose-your-job/ )
“Illinoisans who refuse to get vaccinated or comply with workplace coronavirus mandates could soon be fired for their convictions, thanks to a change in the state’s decades-old health care conscience law.
Gov. J.B Pritzker pushed for and on Nov. 8 (2021) signed the amendment to Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience Act to limit the law being used to challenge his workplace COVID-19 mandates. The change will allow Pritzker to fight legal challenges and employers to discipline employees for refusing to comply with COVID-19 rules, including mandatory vaccinations and testing.
‘Masks, vaccines, and testing requirements are life-saving measures that keep our workplaces and communities safe,’ Pritzker said. He said he is grateful the act ‘is no longer wrongly used against institutions who are putting safety and science first.’
Public employee unions, especially police, have fought back on the vaccination mandates, with Chicago’s police union chief battling the city’s mayor. After Pritzker signed the law, Illinois Fraternal Order of Police President Chris Southwood on Nov. (2021) called him a ‘dictator.’
‘Freedom-loving citizens all across the state have been stripped of their basic right to conscientious choice and can now be discriminated against because of their conscientious refusal to have COVID vaccines forced on them,’ Southwood told WMAY.”
More recently, J.B. Pritzker and other members of the Pritzker family were a driving force behind the Democratic Party convention in 2024 (link from 20 August 2024, Vanity Fair, https://web.archive.org/web/20240822010126/https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/jb-pritzker-dnc-strategy/ ). The story, titled “Inside J.B. Pritzker’s DNC Strategy: Art, Booze, Billionaires, and The Bear: With all eyes on Chicago, the Illinois governor—a leading member of the sprawling Pritzker family—is pulling out all the stops” also adds some context to the Pritzker family history and when the growth global empire accelerated.
“The family that’s perhaps pervaded more institutional boards of trustees than any other is at the center of Illinois politics: the Pritzker family, Chicago-based billionaires who own the Hyatt Hotel empire, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and various other entities. In the 25 years since Jay Pritzker’s death, the number of family members have proliferated and the fortune has spread among the many branches…
As J.B. Pritzker mentioned on Monday, his ancestors did indeed immigrate to Chicago from Ukraine. Nicholas J. Pritzker arrived in 1881, worked as a pharmacist, and his three sons—Jack, Harry, and A.N. Pritzker—become lawyers and started the firm Pritzker & Pritzker, which was successful enough to fund the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago. The global Pritzker empire began in earnest in 1957 when A.N.’s son Jay Pritzker and his brother Donald spent $2.2 million to buy Hyatt House, a Los Angeles motel that had recently opened near LAX, sensing that high-end travelers would need a lux place to crash near the airport. They quickly built Hyatt into one of the world’s biggest hotel brands, and along the way acquired companies like Ticketmaster (sold to Paul Allen in 1993) and the Marmon Group, a manufacturing conglomerate they sold to Berkshire Hathaway, first partially and then entirely.
Through a series of deals and savvy investments, the family has managed to keep the fortune, and then some—since the pandemic it’s added over $10 billion. Forbes estimates that the entire family’s net worth is $41.6 billion, split among the roughly 50 members…
This week, (former Chicago mayor) Daley teamed up with Abby Pucker, the founder of Chicago cultural force Gertie, to produce a series of public art programming called Next Stop Chicago, which will provide funding to community-based organizations across the city during the convention. At a time when the entire Democratic universe will settle down in Chicago for the week, Pucker, whose mother is Gigi Pritzker Pucker, gave out grants of $80,000 to a number of organizations to put on shows when, as Pucker told me, ‘All eyes are gonna be on the city.’”
Once the convention began, J. B. Pritzker delivered a speech (see https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/live-blog-posts/pritzker-calls-himself-an-actual-billionaire-in-contrast-to-trump/ ) in which he implied that Donald Trump was not “an actual billionaire”.
“Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) doubted former President Donald Trump’s wealth during his DNC speech Tuesday, among his many criticisms of the Republican nominee. ‘Donald Trump thinks we should trust him on the economy because he claims to be very rich,’ Pritzker said. ‘But take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only thing: stupidity!’
Even more recently, several accounts, including the linked article published by The Hill on 29 November 2024 ( https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5013304-democrats-2028-presidential-contenders/ ) rank J.B. Pritzker as one of seven top contenders for the Democratic nomination for the US Presidency in 2028, stating:
“…Pritzker could easily build his campaign coffers –and quickly... Democrats have also applauded the way he went after Trump the day after he was elected earlier this month.”
The “Underground” Pritzker family member: Lev Shestov
Most members of the Pritzker family are well-known today, but one member of the family stood far above all others in his fame in the early 1900s. According to several different sources (for example, https://blog.entitree.com/pritzker-family-tree/ ) existentialist philosopher, Lev Shestov, is part of the Pritzker family tree. This link notes that:
“Nicholas Pritzker (1871–1956), Jewish immigrant from Kiev, founder of Pritzker & Pritzker law firm in Chicago and a cousin of the existentialist philosopher Lev Shestov (Schwartzman).”
Likewise, the Wikipedia entry for Lev Shestov (ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Shestov ), references a Russian text (ISBN 978-5-458-24845-7) in stating:
“Shestov was born Yeguda Lev Shvartsman in Kiev into a Jewish family. He was a cousin of Nicholas Pritzker, a lawyer who emigrated to Chicago and became the patriarch of the Pritzker family that is prominent in business and politics.”
To gain appreciation for the monumental importance of Lev Shestov in existential philosophy consider a Tablet Magazine article published on 11 June 2012 by David Sugarman about Lev Shestov titled, “A Philosopher of Small Things: A new book on ‘antiphilosophy’ revives interest in Lev Shestov, a seminal but largely forgotten thinker”. The book, written by Boris Groys uses the term ‘antiphilosophy’ to describe those “philosophers (who) have turned away from large and abstract ideas to examine the world around them—to ponder the ditches, as it were.” Some excerpts from the source ( https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/a-philosopher-of-small-things ) follow:
“…Through personal and subjective explorations of boredom and anxiety, laughter and despair and ecstasy, practitioners of antiphilosophy hope to gain insight into the human condition.
The thinkers who embody this trend are, for the most part, well known (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger), and Groys’ engagements with these familiar figures are often original and illuminating. But one chapter that is especially noteworthy is Groys’ discussion of Lev Shestov, a Russian Jewish philosopher, theologian, and critic whose work was essential in the development of existentialism. Today, Shestov is little-remembered, but Groys’ discussion of his philosophy serves as an excellent introduction to a fascinating and influential thinker who deserves to be better-known in his own right.
Lev Shestov, born Lev Isaakovich Schwarzmann, was born in 1866 into a prosperous merchant family in Kiev. His father was very knowledgeable about Jewish law and literature but was not religious or observant. Shestov married in 1896 and began his career as something of a man of letters in Russia, writing about Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov through the prism of Nietzsche’s philosophy. The tumult of the early decades of the 20th century, however, brought tragedy and instability into Shestov’s life: His son was killed serving in the Russian military, and the October Revolution in 1917 forced his family to flee the country. Shestov would spend the next few years in exile, journeying through Crimea and Switzerland, until 1921, when he would finally settle in France. He died in Paris in 1938.
Shestov’s first sustained work of original philosophy, The Apotheosis of Groundlessness (1905), explored what he termed the ‘groundlessness,’ or irrationality and uncertainty, of man’s experience of the world. ‘We know nothing of the ultimate realities of our existence, nor shall we ever know anything,’ he wrote. ‘Let that be agreed.’ The world does not make sense, argues Shestov, and philosophy should not hope to find reason in it: ‘The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty … it is not to reassure people, but to upset them.’
Shestov’s view that philosophy needed to proceed from an axiom of groundlessness, from an understanding of the human condition as essentially absurd and pointless, was argued in opposition to philosophers who emphasized reason—and the supposedly rational nature of human existence—above all else. Rational and logical thinking clearly help humans understand certain aspects of the world, Shestov acknowledged; ‘to discard logic completely would be extravagant,’ he wrote. But Shestov also believed that rational thought was merely one human ability among many. If used in every sphere of life, he believed, reason would corrode man’s ability to connect to a more spiritual realm. Shestov thus advocated that faith and reason, theology and science, needed to be regarded as two distinct entities….
Man cannot be completely certain that God exists, Shestov argued, nor can he reason his way into religious belief. Rather, he must take a radically irrational step toward God, a step that is personal and not outwardly logical—or even verifiably sane.
The argument that one needed faith in the face of an irrational choice—and Shestov’s appeal to the Hebrew Bible to illustrate this position—is quite similar to an argument advanced half a century earlier by Soren Kierkegaard that is often associated with existentialism. An important 20th-century school of thought, existentialism stressed the absurdity of human life and the need for each individual to overcome that absurdity, even if such a project was doomed from the outset. For Kierkegaard, man had to take a leap of faith to connect to God in order to move beyond his despair, and Shestov’s philosophy argued something similar. What made Shestov’s position unique—indeed, revolutionary—was that it replaced Kierkegaard’s Christian God with an absolutely personal God, one that was not the deity of any religion or text but a strange deity of Shestov’s own making. In contrast to Kierkegaard, whose leap of faith ultimately landed him in a traditional Christian world, Shestov’s leap offers no such safe landing. Shestov’s notion of faith and God can thus be seen as a crucial bridge from Kierkegaard’s religious existentialism, which enabled man to connect to the Judeo-Christian God, to the interwar existentialism of figures like Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus, for whom there was no God to turn to…
Shestov’s work was highly influential during his lifetime. D.H. Lawrence wrote a preface to the first English translation of The Apotheosis of Groundlessness, George Bataille helped see his work into French, and André Gide allegedly remarked—according to Michael Finkenthal’s excellent study of Shestov’s life and work—that “since his encounter with Nietzsche, he had not met anybody as impressive as Lev Shestov.” Hillel Zeitlin wrote that “if someone asked me who was the true successor of Friedrich Nietzsche, I would answer without hesitation, L. Shestov.”
It is thus one of the strangest features of Shestov’s work that it is so unfamiliar to contemporary students of philosophy, literature, and religion. Why this has been the case is ultimately mysterious…”
I find it fascinating that the article does not mention that Lev Shestov is part of the Pritzker family.
A rational person might have expected that both the rapidly acquired wealth and fame of the Pritzker family in the latter half of the 20th century would have elevated the profile of cousin, Lev Shestov. Yet, it seems that precisely the opposite occurred. Instead, he became an “underground” member of the Pritzker family.
I would like to propose a hypothesis which may explain this “strangest” and “mysterious” outcome, but first let us consider some of Lev Shestov’s work.
“Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche”
Consider these excerpts from “Shestov, or the Purity of Despair” by Czeslaw Milosz, From Emperor of the Earth: modes of eccentric thinking, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1977, pp. 99-119.
( https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172424/http://shestov.phonoarchive.org/milosz.html )
“Shestov was often reproached for finding in Shakespeare, in Dostoevsky, and in Nietzsche much that is not there at all, and for too freely interpreting the opinions of his antagonists (numerous, for these included practically all the philosophers of the past three thousand years). He dismissed the reproach with a laugh: he was not such a genius, he would say, that he could create so many geniuses anew. Yet the reproach is not without validity…
In The Myth of Sisyphus—a youthful and not very good book, but most typical of that period—Albert Camus considers Kierkegaard, Shestov, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Husserl to be the philosophers most important to the new ‘man of the absurd.’ For the moment it is enough to say that though Shestov has often been compared with Kierkegaard he discovered the Danish author only late in his life, and that his close personal friendship with Husserl consisted of philosophical opposition—which did not prevent him from calling Husserl his second master after Dostoevsky…
Shestov (and he was not the first, for Rozanov had already made the same suggestion) believed that Dostoevsky's most significant work was Notes from Underground, and considered the major novels that followed as commentaries and attempts to solve the riddle set forth in the Notes. He expressed this opinion in an essay written in 1921 for the hundredth anniversary of Dostoevsky's birth…
He admired Dostoevsky's philosophical genius without reservation—and accepted as true the disparaging rumors about his personal life, rumors spread mostly by Strakhov. It also suited his purpose to see such characters as the Underground Man, Svidrigailov, Ippolit in The Idiot, Stavrogin, and Ivan Karamazov as Dostoevsky's true spokesmen, and even to a large extent autobiographical portraits; and to dismiss Father Zosima and Alyosha as lubok (cheap block prints)…
This approach to Dostoevsky should appeal to those critics who believe the Notes reveal much that this conservative publicist and orthodox Christian tried to stifle in himself…
Shestov names his (own) enemy: Reason. He even says the fruits of the forbidden tree could just as well be called synthetic judgments a priori. And if Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground occupies a central place for Shestov, it is because the hero screams ‘No!’ to ‘two and two make four’ and wants ‘something else.’”
For those unfamiliar with Dostoyevsky’s novels, the characters described (Underground Man, Svidrigailov in Crime and Punishment, Ippolit in The Idiot, and Stavrogin in Demons) are generally nihilists. An exception is the character Ivan Karamazov of The Brothers Karamazov, who is smart and creative but uses his talent to inspire a nihilist (Smerdyakov) who in turn murders the deeply flawed patriarch of the Karamazov family. In other words, these characters are not positive examples, nor are they Christian. Describing the heroic character Alyosha- the Orthodox Christian brother among the Karamazovs- as inauthentic seems to me to be scandalous insult to Dostoyevsky, though to be fair, this is a matter of opinion. So I tracked down a copy of Shestov’s book Athens and Jerusalem (translated by Bernard Martin, published in 1966) to find some of the precise words written by Lev Shestov, albeit in translation (p. 405):
“…Nietzsche spoke of the morality of the slaves and the morality of masters. He could have, he should have, spoken as well of the truth of masters (of men whom it is given to command) and the truth of slaves (of those whose destiny is to obey).
I could mention in this connection Dostoevsky, but no one will believe me. Everyone is convinced, in fact, that Dostoevsky wrote only the several dozen pages devoted to the starets Zossima, or Alyosha Karamazov, etc., and the articles in Journal of a Writer where he explains the theories of the Slavophiles. As for Notes from the Underground […], as for nine-tenths of all that constitutes the complete works of Dostoevsky – all that was not written by Dostoevsky but by a certain ‘personage with a regressive physiognomy’ and only in order to permit Dostoevsky to cover him with shame.”
To elucidate Shestov’s statements, it is helpful to consider a few short excerpts from Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground, in which the narrator (the Underground Man) is never named.
(page 12, part one): “What do I care about the laws of nature and arithmetic if, for one reason or another, I don’t like these laws, including two times two equals four?”
Later (ironically): “All that is needed is to discover the laws of nature; then man will no longer be answerable for his actions, and life will become exceedingly easy… Of course, who can tell what people may think up out of boredom. After all, gold pins were stuck into bodies out of boredom.”
(page 25): “Where did our sages get the idea that man must have normal, virtuous desires? What made them imagine that man must necessarily wish what is sensible and to our advantage? What man needs is his own independent wishing, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead.”
(page 38): “The best thing to do is nothing! The best thing is conscious inertia! And so, hurrah for the underground! Though I have said that I envy the normal man to the bitterest gall, yet, under the conditions in which I see him, I don’t want to be one. No, no the underground is more advantageous!... Ah, but I’m lying again! Lying again because I know as clearly as two times two, that it’s not at all the underground which is best, but something altogether different, something I long for and can never find! To the devil with the underground!”
In Part 2 of the book, subtitled ‘On the Occasion of Wet Snow’, the narrator (Underground Man) describes an encounter with a woman who loves him despite all of his faults. Yet, he rejects her love.
(p. 123: “(Liza) insulted and humiliated by me, understood much more than I imagined. She understood what a woman, if she loves sincerely, will always understand before all else. She understood that I myself was unhappy.
…She rushed to me. Threw her arms around my neck, and burst out crying. I broke down too and sobbed as I had never sobbed before. ‘They won’t let me… I can’t be…good,’ I said with difficulty.”
(After rejecting her love with cruelty) “…It was quiet. The snow was tumbling down heavily, almost vertically, blanketing the sidewalk and the deserted street. There were no passersby. No sound was heard. The dreary streetlights flickered uselessly. I ran two hundred steps or so to the corner and stopped. ‘Where did she go? Why am I running after her?’… I have never seen Liza again, and never heard anything about her… Even today, so many years later, the memory of all this is somehow distressing… I have felt ashamed throughout the writing of this narrative; hence, it is no longer literature but corrective punishment. ”
This scene is transformed in Dostoyevsky’s later work, The Brothers Karamazov’, as will be discussed shortly.
In the conclusion of his book, ‘All Things are Possible,’ ( , p. 242), Lev Shestov performs an inversion of the loneliness and despair of Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man, raising the character to a high, rather than low, position. He accomplishes this using a play on the German word Schwindelfreie. In German, this word can mean either ‘giddiness’ or ‘excessive happiness’, or it can denote the sense of ‘vertigo’ or ‘fear of heights’. Shestov cites:
“(W)hy make the inevitable ‘conclusion’ at the end of every book? I am almost certain that sooner or later I can promise the reader the reader all his heart desires. But not yet…
Meanwhile our motto ‘Nur fer Schwindelfreie’. There are in the Alps narrow, precipitous paths where only mountaineers may go, who feel no giddiness. Giddy-free! ‘Only for the giddy free,’ it says on the notice-board. He who is subject to giddiness takes a broad, safe road, or sits away below and admires the snowy summits. Is it inevitably necessary to mount up? Beyond the snow-line are no fat pastures nor gold fields. They say that up there is to be found the clue to the eternal mystery –but they say so many things. We can’t believe everything. He who is tired of the valleys, loves climbing, and is not afraid to look down a precipice, and, most of all, has nothing left in life but the ‘metaphysical craving,’ he will certainly he will certainly climb to the summits without asking what awaits him there. He does not fear, he longs for giddiness. But he will hardly call people after him; he doesn’t want just anyone for a companion. In such a case, companions are not wanted at all, much less those tender-footed ones who are used to every convenience, roads, street lamps, guideposts, careful maps which mark every change in the road ahead. They will not help, only hinder. They will prove superfluous, heavy ballast, which may not be thrown overboard. Fuss over them, console them, promise them! Who would be bothered? Is it not better to go one’s way alone, and not only to refrain from enticing others to follow, but frighten them off as much as possible, exaggerate every danger and difficulty? In order that conscience may not prick too hard – we who love high altitudes love a quiet conscience – let us find a justification for their inactivity. Let us tell them they are the best, the worthiest of people, really the salt of the earth. Let us pay them every possible mark of respect. But since they are subject to giddiness, they had better stay down. The upper Alpine ways, as any guide will tell you, are ‘Nur fer Schwindelfreie’.”
In performing this inversion, Shestov reinforces the heroic nature of the despair of the Underground Man while relgating Dostoyevsky’s Orthodox Christian character Alyosha Karamazov to a subordinate ‘block print’ (in the words of Czeslaw Milosz).
23 and 1
It is often said that in order to understand the soul of the Russian people, one should first read Dostoyevsky. But Dostoyevsky’s unique ability both to comprehend human nature and to express it so eloquently penetrates through the layers of time and superficial cultural barriers.
For an example of influence on modern American culture, consider the lyrics of hip-hop music, where one might least expect to find it. The title of this article is a modified form of Kanye West’s lyric from Follow God, a popular track from his 2019 album, Jesus is King. The actual lyric is:
“Looking for a bright light. Sigel, ‘What Ya Life Like’”
In turn, the lyric refers to a song titled “What Ya Life Like,” which was released in the year 2000 on the album, The Truth, by musical artist Beanie Sigel (whose given name is Dwight Equan Grant) under the record label Roc-A-Fella Records, co-founded by Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter. The lyrics describe a man in prison experiencing “23 and 1”, slang for solitary confinement- referring to being locked in a jail cell alone for 23 hours per day with the 1 remaining hour set aside for a shower or a phone call, if allowed.
Some of the lyrics might be fairly characterized as profane, but there is one phrase in the song which proves the point.
“What you know about 23 and 1? Locked down, all day, underground, never seeing the sun. Visits stripped from you. Never seeing your son…”
This lyric might be interpreted as referencing the despair of Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man in Notes from the Underground. Moreover, the prison setting and its somber depiction of the despair of inmate life aligns well with the account in Dostoyevsky’s novel, The House of the Dead. That novel is drawn from Dostoyevsky’s own experience while he was imprisoned in a Siberian work camp. Beanie Sigel also spent considerable time in prison for a variety of charges both before the 2000 release of The Truth and also between 2000 and the 2019 release of the Kanye West track, Follow God, referencing Sigel.
It occurs to me that several of the details in the lyric above match the experience for many people due to the measures imposed by Gov. Pritzker and others under the mantle of a “Covid-19 health emergency.” Many people, not only in Illinois but all over the world, experienced what was described in the media as a “lockdown.” Even outside areas like beaches and parks were closed, with threats of fines and arrests for those who dared to venture into them. Patients in hospitals and nursing homes were forbidden from seeing their relatives and children because visits were banned. Moreover, might one also interpret the phrase ‘never seeing your son’ as suggesting that the Christians were prevented from seeing artistic renderings of the Son of Man in stained glass windows and other artwork in churches?
Personally, I find it interesting that the phrase “23 and 1” might be interpreted as “23 and one”, with ‘one’ used as a pronoun. Further, if that pronoun refers to one’s self, the term for self-imposed solitary confinement may morph into 23 and me. The company 23andme, which collects genetic material from individuals who voluntarily submit samples to the company for the purpose of DNA testing, began in 2006, six years after the release of What Ya Life Like.
Incidentally, the sound track for ‘What Ya Life Like’ is the only one on the album The Truth which includes Christopher Young as a composer. Christopher Young is an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Southern California (https://music.usc.edu/christopher-young/ ). His compositions have been a popular choice in horror films, including Hellraiser, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Drag Me to Hell, Sinister, Deliver Us from Evil, and Pet Sematary.
The temptation, revisited
In another section of ‘All Things are Possible’, Lev Shestov’s offers an opinion about arguably the most beautiful and famous passage penned by Dostoyevsky, Ivan Karamazov’s ‘poem’ of the Grand Inquisitor’s interaction with Jesus. For those unfamiliar with this segment of The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan relates a story to his brother Alyosha in which he imagines Jesus visiting Seville, Spain during the darkest period of the Inquisition. After performing miracles and experiencing the love of the people of Seville, Jesus is imprisoned by the Grand Inquisitor, who tells Him that he should have accepted Satan’s temptation of providing bread for all the people of the world. In response to a query from Alyosha, Ivan explains that “the Grand Inquisitor claims it as a merit for himself and for his Church that at last they have vanquished freedom and have done so to make men happy.” Ivan’s vision of Jesus remains silent as the Grand Inquisitor explains in great detail why he must “burn Jesus to death for coming to hinder us.” When the Grand Inquisitor stopped seaking he waited for Jesus to reply, but instead Jesus remained silent. Then “Jesus suddenly approached the old man and kissed him.” The Grand Inquisitor, overcome with emotion, released Jesus, saying “Go and come no more.” And the Prisoner went away.
Lev Shestov’s commentary is as follows:
“In Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor lurks a dreadful idea. Who can be sure, he (Dostoyevsky) says-metaphorically of course- that when the crucified Christ uttered his cry, ‘Lord, why have You forsaken me?’ he did not call to mind the temptation of Satan, who for one word had offered Him dominion over the world? And if Jesus recollected this offer, how can we be sure that He did not ‘repent’ not having taken it? One had better not be told about such temptations.” (‘All Things are Possible,’ –Shestov, p. 117) https://archive.org/details/allthingsarepos00lawrgoog )
I believe Shestov’s true intention is veiled in this passage, but allow me to set that point aside for a moment, and address his questions. The obvious answer for Christian believers is that the Resurrection of Christ proves that Jesus did not “repent” – a better word might be “submit”- to Satan. However, I would like to propose a second, alternate answer acknowledging that, as the saying goes, “The Devil never sleeps.”
The offer from Satan was, in my view, a standing offer. If for even one instant, Jesus had ‘repented’ and offered that ‘one word’, Satan would have accepted the repentance. To illustrate this point, allow me to lay out an example. For those who might be uncomfortable with a conceived scenario, which lies outside the Scripture, I point to two verses from the Gospels:
Luke 4:13 “And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from Him until an opportune time.”
John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that could be written.”
***
Let us imagine that Satan were to revisit Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, just as Jesus uttered the words in Matthew 26:39: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but as You will.”
Satan: “Did I hear something about a cup? Well, if it isn’t my old acquaintance, Jesus of Nazareth. It’s been so long since You and I had that riveting conversation in the desert. Perhaps You remember how You so hastily dismissed my three most generous offers. This day seemed so far away then, did it not? Ah, but time surely does pass by quickly. Now that Your hour is at hand, perhaps You might wish to reconsider my terms? (Leaning close to Jesus)…Cups are very earthly objects, and I’ve seen many cups in my time. Kings get a cup. Peasants get a cup. Slaves get a cup. Everybody gets a cup. I know all about cups… If You like, I will gladly take that cup from You and provide You with a far superior one.”
(According to Luke 22:43, “An angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him.”
Perhaps it is possible that this angel gave Jesus the strength to reply. )
Jesus: “Begone, Satan. You have nothing in me.”
Satan: (laughing) “Very well. I’ll understand that to mean You would like to contemplate matters a bit longer. But I will see You soon… In the meantime, You’d better go check on Your disciples. I’m sure they are very worried and distressed over what will happen next.” (laughing and departing)
[Dostoyevsky wrote about how time slows down for the condemned man. In The Idiot, his hero describes how a prisoner marching to the gallows might focus on one street, and then the next – all the while contemplating that his death will not occur until after he passes each street. Due to the preciousness of life, the condemned focuses all mental energy on a single object, knowing that as long as he has not passed that object, he is still alive.
Imagine Satan again appearing to Jesus (and only to Jesus) as He is carrying his cross to Calvary after being beaten by Roman Centurions.]
Satan: “My, that cross looks heavy (pressing down upon it slightly). I see that Your face has been introduced to the fists of my- ahem, Caesar’s- faithful servants (laughing). Are You familiar with the saying, ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth’? It would only be natural for You to reconsider my most generous offers. Look up ahead- do You see that large rock by the path? Rest assured that You won’t be crucified until You pass it by. Relish these dear seconds before that happens. Or – I have an idea- why not turn that stone into bread? Why- the people here will be amazed! They’ll not only remove this cross from Your back, but they’ll also bow in Your honor, as You would so richly deserve! Do You think these people seek truth? (laughing) Oh, please! Don’t be delusional! They seek bread! Give them what they want, and you’ll see Your follower count increase exponentially! It only takes a single word from Your lips.”
[Jesus remains silent as they pass by the stone..]
Satan (now annoyed): “Very well. I see Your stubbornness hasn’t been pounded out of You just yet.”
[The story continues according to the accounts in the Gospels. Imagine now an instant frozen in time. The group of men are holding Jesus steadfastly against the cross, preparing Him to be executed in the manner which the Pharisees implored of Pilate. One is holding the hammer in the air, about to drive the first nail into the palm of Jesus’ right hand. The sharp point of the nail, depressing the skin, has been twisted just enough to draw a single drop of blood. Satan appears again only to Jesus as time stands still for all others.]
Satan: “Ah, nothing pleases me more than a crucifixion -it’s one of my favorites! (Leaning in toward Jesus) Do you know how it works? The executioners have to drive the nails between the bones in order to mount the convict upon the wooden cross. So they instead puncture nerves, ligaments, and blood vessels while the bones grind against the iron nails that are wedged between them.
Remember how, on that Sabbath day, You rubbed the mud into the blind man’s eyes so he could see? There will be no more illegal acts of unauthorized healing with those hands. They’ll be useless slabs of meat. Such a pity! They are so very useful! Wouldn’t You would like to use one right now to wipe away that trickle of blood and sweat from your cheek? (with a mocking sneer) Oh, dear! Do I see another tear I see mixed in?
Soon they’ll drive the nails into Your feet in the same fashion- no more walking! Seven nails in each hand and foot – that’s 28 in total. Just think - You can count them down as they drive the nails into You! Of course, it’s so difficult to concentrate with all the hammering noise.
But the best – well, for You- the most excruciating part comes when they tilt the cross upright! Your body weight will wedge the nails between the bones in Your feet while tearing through the nerves, ligaments and blood vessels. The good news is that You can take up some of the immeasurable pain in Your feet by using Your spiked hands to take up some of the weight. But then that will cause intense pain in Your Hands. But the exciting part is that You will get to decide how the pain distributed between your hands and feet. Now that’s what I call free choice! The crucified man has hours to seek out the least intolerable position – as if any of them are – before succumbing to death.
For You, though, there is another option. (Leaning closer) I am prepared to send a lightning bolt down through the very hammer this man is about to use to pound the nail through Your hand! As soon as that happens, everyone gathered will instinctively know that You are meant to be a king! How could it be otherwise? Immediately, we can end this gruesome-and yet highly entertaining- activity. But that is not all…
I must admit I have a particular fondness for Rome. Just as You have Your disciples, I have my own little club of worshippers there- not all Romans of course, but certainly an elite few. Of course, my best foot-soldiers are weak men like Pilate, with annihilated consciences. The ‘hand washers’ accomplish much more than any kings or emperors when it comes to executing my desires. By the way, don’t let Pilate fool you into thinking he is unaware of the definition of ‘truth’; he knows that ‘truth’ is whatever I - ahem, Caesar- says that it is.
But Your allegiance is so meaningful to me that I’m willing to wipe the entire Roman Empire away. I will give you all of this world and its glory. For it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whom I wish. Once You rule over all the world, You may enforce Your truth – whatever that might be. Surely, this would be far simpler than expecting this grotesque mass of humanity to seek ‘truth’ for themselves? You ask too much of them.
All I ask is in exchange is your loyalty. Worship before me, and it will all be Yours. If You refuse, You’ll be nailed to the cross, one hammer strike at a time… ”
Jesus (with time still frozen): “Begone Satan. You have nothing in me.”
Satan (angry): “You disappoint me. I thought You would be smart enough to come to Your senses by now. Your chances are running out. (Leaning toward Jesus) Do not be dismayed, however. Death by crucifixion takes a very long time, and each second will feel like a lifetime. Perhaps your mind will clear.”
[The gospel accounts indicate that Jesus did live for hours while being nailed to the cross. The account in the Gospel of Luke ends with Jesus saying only, “Father into Thy hands I command My spirit”. So to be responsive to the question posed by Shestov, the statement made by Jesus according to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark is included. I will also add one more sentence which the Gospel of John attributes to Jesus before His death on the cross.]
Mark 15:34: At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”
[Imagine, at this moment, Satan returning to speak to Jesus, while unseen and unheard by others. Time continues normally, rather than being frozen in an instant as before.]
Satan: (laughing): “Your question is easy to answer. You have yet to tell God to preserve Your life, as He surely would. After all, it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge concerning You to guard You. On their hands, they will bear You up lest You strike Your boot against a stone.’ Simply express that Your will to live in this world must be respected! If only You had taken my advice in the garden and told Him then, so much unnecessary drama might have been avoided. (laughing again) I suppose for some, it is not enough simply to describe. It must be demonstrated!”
[Jesus remains silent for several seconds-perhaps even a full minute. Satan is no long laughing, and appears a bit nervous.]
Satan: “But You must move quickly now! Go on, God owes You this!”
[Jesus grows weaker in body, but not in spirit… as Satan continues, expressing more concerned now.]
Satan: “All that is required is a simple nod… or a knowing blink! He will understand and preserve You!”
Instead, Jesus speaks: “It is finished.”
And He takes the final breath of His earthly life. Victory is won on the cross.
***
I bet Satan was, and remains, a sore loser. Clearly, Satan considers himself the GOAT (‘Greatest Of All Time’). And yet he miserably failed to lure Jesus with his temptations – whether it happened on only one occasion in the desert as described by Matthew and Luke, or whether it also happened in other ways, perhaps something like what is imagined herein.
It might be a sin to express this, but I hope God rubbed Satan’s nose in it. For example, imagine a scene of Satan, incredulous after the last words of Jesus, watching and listening as the Roman solider approached Jesus after His death:
Soldier: “In less than one generation, no one will speak the name of this man: ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews!’ (laughing while piercing Jesus’ side with his spear) But the glory of the Roman Empire will reign forever!”
Might God might have provided Satan with a glimpse of the future fall of Rome and rise of Christianity at that very instant? Can you imagine Satan, enraged to a level beyond mortal comprehension, cursing and howling while being cast back into Hell?
To be clear, the Bible does not address whether any statement was made by the solider. Nor does the Bible describe whether a cold chill, perhaps raising an ominous sensation, was felt by the soldier shortly after he pierced Jesus’ side.
***
Returning to the subject of Shestov’s ponderance (…how can we be sure that He did not ‘repent’ not having taken Satan’s temptations on the cross?). I believe Shestov ‘s statement does not directly concern Jesus as one might interpret at face value, but rather Dostoyevsky. Like Kierkegaard, Shestov viewed the choice between ‘Reason/Athens’ and ‘Faith/Jerusalem’ as an either-or decision. Shestov showed great respect for Dostoyevsky, a self-proclaimed devout Orthodox Christian. But he surely recognized the extraordinary reasoning skills Dostoyevsky displayed by authoring profoundly insightful novels about the human condition. So assuming that Shestov’s stated belief system truly represents his views, Shestov himself was left with an either-or decision: Was Dostoyevsky, in his core being, philosophically encamped in Athens, as Shestov suggested through his commentary, or rather in Jerusalem, as Dostoyevsky himself proclaimed?
Shestov resolves the dilemma by writing that accepts Dostoyevsky’s assertion that he is a Christian even though, in Shestov’s characterization of Dostoyevsky’s thinking, it is an absurd choice to make. But one must consider that much of Shestov’s writing, like that of Kierkegaard, is laden with irony. So it is my opinion that Shestov’s underlying intention, supported by Shestov’s own stated assessments of Dostoyevsky’s work and story characters, is to present Dostoyevsky as an atheist cloaked with a thin veneer of pretended Christianity.
Martin Heidegger: a Jesuit theologian, de-theologized
Recall a statement the essay by Czeslaw Milosz, “Albert Camus considers Kierkegaard, Shestov, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Husserl to be the philosophers most important to the new ‘man of the absurd.’”
The introduction to an English translation of Lev Shestov’s book Athens and Jerusalem includes the following passage (p. 25):
“It was at Husserl’s home in Freiburg that Shestov, when he came to the German university town to lecture in 1929, met Martin Heidegger. When Heidegger left the house after a long philosophical discussion, Husserl urged Shestov to acquaint himself with the work of Kierkegaard, hitherto unknown to him, and indicated that some of Heidegger’s fundamental ideas had been inspired by the 19th Century Danish thinker.”
Professor Michael Sugrue lectured on the philosopher Martin Heidegger (a video recording is available at
), and a few excerpts of his excellent lecture are included (with emphasis added in bold) here:
“Martin Heidegger has a very interesting background which tells us a great deal about the sorts of intellectual activity he undertakes. In the first case, he starts out in his intellectual life as a Jesuit seminarian, which tells you a great deal about the cast of his mind and his early intellectual habits. And much of this will have an influence later on as you’ll see it come out in a transformation. I may be the only person who believes this – but I may not be- that growing up as a Jesuit seminarian has telling effects later on in life. Martin Heidegger is that in spades. When he makes an intellectual case, it is absolute…
What Heidegger wants to do is to find out about ‘Being’. And he’s very familiar with Greek philosophy. In fact, he thinks that it’s pretty much been all downhill since Aristotle, that the Christianity, the Romans the Enlightenment didn’t make much difference in the history of thought. The real high point was even before Plato in the pre-Socratics. And what he wants to do is to force us back to the original sophisticated naivete of pre-Socratic thought… He wants to move away from that practical, concrete, tangible sort of inquiry into something more abstract and nebulous… This sounds to me remarkably like going back to the Garden of Eden.”
Heidegger wants to start with the pre-reflective unconscious state and drive us toward consciousness of ourselves. He doesn’t guarantee that this is going to be pretty or easy or readily intelligible. But, on the other hand, anything else you are engaged in is relatively unimportant. What profiteth the man that he should gain the world and lose his soul? I think this has at least one foot in Christian theology. And I think that many of the ideas of Heidegger’s honest or authentic confrontation of ‘Being’ are philosophical, highly abstract Jesuit theology – de-theologized. You hold on to the structure, you leave out the content – things are going to get very weird…
(Heidegger emphasizes that) we must confront our temporality, our own death – surely one of the great themes in Christianity as well. ‘Being authentic’ comes out as being the one imperative. Conscience accuses us of being inauthentic. Heidegger thinks he is the ‘voice of conscience’. To no small extent, he moves from being a philosopher to being a prophet with surprising agility. And when he calls you to be yourself, he sounds more like Jeremiah than he does Sartre… Authenticity will redeem us.
Between now and the time we die, there is a variety of choices we can make, projects we could undertake. The problem is – we will not be able to do all of these things. So that means that, between now and then, you’ve got to make some choices about what you are going to do with your life. The problem is that you are not going to be able to do all the things you might wish to do, or you could do, if you were an eternal being. And that means that you will not realize all your possibilities – and you owe yourself a debt you can never repay. This is cosmic guilt. May I suggest that this is the echo of ‘Original Sin’, de-theologized?
Heidegger’s (philosophy) requires that we live our life facing death rather than denying it. And ethics implodes. The only obligation we have left is that we be authentic. And that ends up meaning that it’s not so important what you do in life as how you do it.
In other words, between now and the time you die, it’s not so important what projects you undertake, it’s that you should be conscious that you won’t be able to do all of them. And that you have to decide which are better. The difficulty here is that this very easily slides off into straightaway nihilism. Heidegger, after all, became a Nazi. Heidegger was advanced due to his ties with National Socialism. Heidegger, whose greatest work ‘Being and Time’ was published in Husserl’s yearbook, and Husserl was his teacher, and it was dedicated to Husserl. But alas, Husserl was a Jew. And so when Husserl was moved out of academic life starting in 1933, Heidegger took his place. Heidegger publicly disassociated with Husserl. And Heidegger ended up taking Husserl’s Chair at the University of Freiburg. This sounds to me like the phenomenology of careerism. But I could be wrong…
It is a particularly unhappy circumstance when a philosopher who claims a deep or profound or important insight to life lets us down in such an egregious way. There is something not only disconcerting about it, there is something which makes me want to put the rest of his statement in italics and be very careful about how I read them…
(Heidegger’s view is that) we should always be oriented toward the future and our own demise. And that means we have to do what Heidegger calls ‘thinking about Nothing,’ which is one of the most trying things you can try to do. I know it sounds like a joke, (but Heidegger is serious). This runs us into all kinds of logical problems. And Heidegger will say, ‘So much for you and your logic. Confront Being as it really is.’
Heidegger suggests that Nietzsche shows all the inauthenticity since the pre-Socratic Greeks. He is going to drive us back to the pre-Socratics, an ambition which he shares with Neitzsche. In the post-war (WW2) years, Heidegger put together a very interesting set of essays called ‘Holzwege’, which means ‘wood trails’. In German, ‘wood trails’ have the idea (or connotation) of ‘cul-de-sacs’. In other words, you talk a walk in the woods-and there are various trails-but they don’t lead anywhere. They lead toward ‘Nothing’, towards an impasse. They are a set of essays that are the logical or psychic analog of cul-de-sacs or blind alleys…
Heidegger is so impenetrable, he often comes close to self-parody… Many of Heidegger’s ideas of parts of his writing are elaborate puns or play on words. He merges (similar words and/or meanings) into a messy, mushy, sort of linguistic overlap. And you might be tempted to think that is a big problem with Heidegger. But I’m also tempted to say that is a source of his richness. In other words, he is more concerned with connotations than denotations. He likes this messy linguistic wordplay, these puns, and his implausible etymologies. When he doesn’t know the historical source of a word, I think he usually makes it up- and then provides some ‘philosophical argument’ for why only he understands the source of this word, and all the rest of the lexicographers do not. This happens all the time with his treatment of Greek and German…
Another problem that comes up is the problem of morality, mysticism, and nihilism… I’d like to offer a foundational criticism… Nihilism might be defined as ‘speech which is indistinguishable from silence’. And I’ve often thought that this discussion about ‘Nothing’ is a very sophisticated way of not saying anything. My most important difficulty with Heidegger is this nebulous, collection of insights, and tautologies, and unintelligibilities, and neologisms are a kind of transformation of theology. It seems to me that Heidegger’s ‘Being’ is theology with God left out. And we worship ourselves and have obligations to ourselves instead of having obligations to the Deity. And our one obligation is to be ourselves. This comes very close, not just to solipsism, but to self-worship.
Heidegger has had little influence on Anglo-American philosophy (lacking logic-talking about dread and death only). Where has Heidegger’s work been influential? In theology (several examples are provided).
May I suggest then that the enigmatic ‘Being’ so central to Heidegger’s thought is in fact easily interpreted as ‘the silence of God’?”
Heidegger’s Holzwege - the original rabbit holes”
Professor Sugrue’s lecture provides a useful springboard for understanding Heidegger’s writings. One popular English translation (by Julian Young and Kenneth Hayes, Cambridge University Press) of Martin Heidegger’s “Holzwege” is titled “Off the Beaten Track”. The translators provide a somewhat apologetic note in the preface which is indicative of translating any of Heidegger’s work:
“In entitling his work ‘Holzwege’, Heidegger chose a term which balances positive and negative implications. On the one hand, a ‘Holzweg’ is a timber track that leads to a clearing in the forest where timber is cut. On the other, it is a track that used to lead to such a place but is now overgrown and leads nowhere. Hence, in a popular German idiom, to be ‘on a Holzweg’ is to be on the wrong track or in a cul-de-sac.”
Could it be that, in the common vernacular, the latter description of a ‘Holzweg’ might also be interpreted as a ‘rabbit hole’?
Thus, the translators this confirm the point made by Professor Sugrue that the difficulty in translating Heidegger’s complex wordplay in German is problematic for anyone hoping to gain insight from an English version of Heidegger’s work. Words and phrases with duality embedded generally have only one intended meaning in English. The translator, therefore, often has the difficult task of choosing which of Heidegger’s meaning to convey while leaving out the second meaning. In other words, a title of ‘Rabbit Holes’ would have an entirely different connotation from ‘Off the Beaten Track’, even though both could reasonably be deemed suitable as an English translation of ‘Holzwege’.
The first essay in ‘Holwege’, is titled in English “The Origin of the Work of Art”, and it argues provocatively that ‘truth’ originates in art. As Heidegger puts it, “Art is then, a becoming and a happening of truth.” He asserts that, “Truth happens only by establishing itself in the strife and space it itself opens up. Since truth is the opposition of clearing and concealment, there belongs to it what may here be called ‘establishment’. But truth is not present beforehand, somewhere among the stars, so as then, later on, to find accommodation among beings.” Moreover, Heidegger relegates ‘science’ to a secondary role in regard to establishing truth, stating, “Science, by contrast, is not an original happening of truth but always the cultivation of a domain of truth that has already been opened.”
Heidegger’s placement of artwork in the position of the ‘origin of truth’ directly opposes the Divided Line analogy attributed to Socrates in Plato’s Republic, which places ‘art’ below both the ideal ‘form’ of an entity and the physical object itself – in other words, twice removed from truth. Heidegger’s model of truth rules out the existence of the ‘world of the forms’ found in Plato’s Republic and, likewise, the heaven of the Torah and the Christian Bible. In addition, it places scientific accomplishments like Isaac Newton’s elucidation of the Law of Gravity in a subordinate position to some “domain of truth which had already been opened,” presumably by something which Heidegger would classify as “artwork”. After all, gravity existed “among the stars” since the beginning of the universe, yet it was not understood well until Isaac Newton described it. So a person oriented toward logic might reason that Newton’s scientific work shed light on pre-existing “truth” (planetary bodies did not change direction due to Newton’s theory once he explained it, after all) and rank it higher than artwork, possibly even labeling Newton’s Law of Gravity as an ‘description (rather than origin) of truth’.
While many of Heidegger arguments are abstract and difficult to follow after translation, he does provide a few specific examples which effectively convey his ideas. In these offerings, I can understand why so many are attracted to his writing. In one case, Heidegger considers a painting rendered by Vincent van Gogh, of a peasant woman’s shoes and contends that we learn the truth about the shoes by contemplating the van Gogh painting of the shoes rather than by observing the shoes themselves. He does not specify which van Gogh painting but rather states that he “painted such shoes several times”. Heidegger classifies the shoes themselves as “equipment” in that they have a practical benefit, are judged for their utility, and are made by a craftsman rather than an artist. By contrast, van Gogh’s painting of the shoes is the “work”, or to clarify herein, the “artwork” created by the “artist”. Here is Heidegger’s beautifully written passage:
“From out of the dark opening of the well-worn insides of the shoes the toil of the worker’s tread stares forth. In the crudely solid heaviness of the shoes accumulates the tenacity of the slow trudge through the far-stretching and ever-uniform furrows of the field swept by a raw wind. On the leather lies the dampness and richness of the soil. Under the soles slides the loneliness of the field-path as evening falls. The shoes vibrate with the silent call of the earth, its silent gift of the ripening grain, its unexplained self-refusal in the wintry field. The equipment is provided by uncomplaining worry as to the certainty of bread, wordless joy at having once more withstood want, trembling before the impending birth, and shivering at the surrounding menace of death. This equipment belongs to the earth and finds protection in the world of the peasant woman. From out of this protected belonging the equipment itself rises to its resting-within itself.
But perhaps it is only in the picture that we notice all this about the shoes. The peasant woman, by contrast, merely wears them. If only this simple wearing were that simple. Whenever in the late evening she takes off the shoes, in deep but healthy tiredness, and in the still dark dawn reaches for them once again, or passes by them on a holiday, she knows all this without observation or reflection…
The artwork did not did not serve, at it might at first seem, merely to make it easier to visualize what the piece of equipment (the pair of shoes) is. Rather, Van Gogh’s painting is the disclosure of what the equipment, the pair of peasant shoes, in truth is.”
In the appendix to this essay (Origin of Truth in the Work of Art) Heidegger provides quotes contrary to his own position (citing Hegel), which support the Socratic stance with respect to art in the essay. One quote is, “Art no longer counts as the highest way in which truth finds existence for itself” while a second is, “In all these connections art is, and remains, with regard to its highest vocation, a thing of the past.”
After summarizing his arguments against these statements, Heidegger counters that:
“Beauty does not occur alongside the truth but rather belongs to the advent of truth… In the world determined in a Western way, there is a particular convergence of beauty and truth, [and to] the essence of truth there corresponds the essential history of Western art.”
Taking a charitable view of Heidegger, the contribution of art to thought would indeed be severely underestimated if we were to assume that people use only logic to comprehend our surroundings. For many, great artwork does evoke emotion, empathy, and understanding in a fashion which cannot be gained from observing the equipment (shoes) alone. May I suggest that it is fair to contemplate that both Vincent van Gogh and Isaac Newton perform similar tasks of illuminating, rather than originating truth?
Another aspect of van Gogh painting is that the understanding of the artwork is brought about through expert guidance, which Heidegger in this instance provides. Would you have noticed all of the thought-provoking details of Van Gogh’s painting without his commentary? One might likewise argue that an expert instructor, well-versed on Newton’s theories, might be needed in order to convey the meaning of the truth brought to light by the Law of Gravity to a novice. The essential role of art critic or physics teacher in bringing truth to light is often overlooked.
But is it possible that, as Heidegger contends, artwork goes even farther by causing truth to come into existence rather than illuminating a pre-existing truth, which was perhaps otherwise concealed? Let us set this question aside to address first the danger in embracing this belief.
“Artwork” and “Equipment” in the hands of a tyrant
The ability to generate and therefore control ‘truth’ through a combination of artwork and its explanation by an expert would certainly be an intoxicating idea for the tyrannical mind. Simply put, gaining a stranglehold on ‘truth’, or to be more accurate ‘perceived truth’, would pave the way for dominating and ruling over a population. Consider a simple case:
Suppose a government ruled by a tyrant sells bread to his people for two dollars per loaf and that each citizen is required to buy two loaves of bread per week from the tyrant. Using Heidegger’s model, let’s suppose that a work of art can bring into being a ‘truth’ which causes two times two to equal ten in this one specific instance. The tyrant would benefit collecting ten dollars instead of four dollars (two times two). Naturally, there might be some citizens who object to this ‘truth’. However, the tyrant is a step ahead in the process.
The tyrant recruits ‘experts’ and only allows only these ‘experts’ to perform’ licensed mathematics’. The tyrant then pays the ‘licensed mathematicians’ handsomely out of his proceeds from the lucrative ‘2 times 2 equals 10 equation for those who buy the tyrant’s bread’. Any ‘licensed mathematician’ who fails to publicly promote this equation loses his license to perform mathematics and is labeled an ‘anti-math’ skeptic. Therefore, all the ‘experts’ agree that the tyrant’s mathematical equation is correct.
Any of the tyrant’s subjects who complain that the total price should be only four dollars- or that the loaves of bread the people are required to purchase in fact cost five dollars apiece is punished for ‘spreading misinformation’ and placed in solitary confinement, 23 and 1. After all, they have no ‘math license’ and the ‘experts’ clearly agree that these peasants are lying.”
Some might object that mathematicians would never stoop so low as to promote the idea that two times two equals ten, just to benefit a tyrant and to become wealthy themselves. Perhaps, but then the tyrant would simply hire statisticians instead.
This raises a question: Is artwork capable of generating such a ‘truth’ which both runs counter to mathematical logic and which has been so obviously generated in order to achieve the goals of a tyrant?
It is difficult for me to imagine how Heidegger might respond to this question. If he were to assent that artwork were capable of generating this outcome, the advantage to the tyrant is obvious. The tyrant simply convinces the artist to accept payment from the same proceeds used for the ‘experts’. But let’s consider the opposite possibility and suppose that Heidegger would classify such an obvious untruth, generated for nefarious reasons, as disqualifying the product from being described as artwork. From the tyrant’s perspective, it would not matter as long as he can convince an established artist, recognized as being capable of generating truly great artwork, to produce an object which leads to his desired outcome. In such an instance, even if the object cannot be considered artwork in the Heidegger terminology, it would nonetheless qualify as equipment. It serves the purpose of the tyrant.
In turn, the tyrant would have the means to compensate the person, whether described as an artist who generated the artwork, or as a craftsman (to use Heidegger’s term) who generated the equipment. In choosing a respected artist, the tyrant would negate criticism that what others perceive as equipment cannot be artwork by controlling the narrative of the object created by the artist/craftsman.
Is it possible that a gifted artist with rare and special talent might agree to the terms of such a tyrant? Consider Martin Heidegger himself. The same man who wrote so eloquently and thoughtfully of the van Gogh painting of peasant shoes also:
“produced a number of speeches in the Nazi cause, such as, for example, ‘Declaration of Support for Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist State’ delivered in November 1933.” (See https://iep.utm.edu/heidegge/ )
Adolf Hitler and ‘experts’ within the Nazi Party surely pointed to Heidegger’s endorsement to persuade his countrymen that the policies of the Third Reich were supported in academic circles. Would Heidegger himself, who is certainly a man capable of creating great literary artwork and works of philosophy, classify these speeches as artwork (generating ‘truth’) or as equipment (generating a useful outcome, in this instance, for Hitler)?
Here is another thought: Did Heidegger entirely on his own conceive and write these speeches praising Adolf Hitler? Or were general topics suggested to Heidegger, leading him to produce speeches around this pre-existing framework? Or were they perhaps mostly composed by others affiliated with the National Socialist Party, with only minor changes made by Heidegger himself?
What if the same genre of questions were posed to Kendrick Lamar, in place of Heidegger, with the Universal Music Group taking the place of the National Socialist Party? It seems that Drake might be raising these sorts of questions through the actions of his legal team regarding Not Like Us. I would raise precisely the same questions with regard to Auntie Diaries.
The Unbroken Net of Scripture: The Gospel of John
Given that Heidegger was formerly a Jesuit and that Professor Sugrue points out the Heidegger’s influence is largely in the realm of religion, I wondered whether some of Heidegger’s ideas might be formed through his study of the Bible when he was a Jesuit seminarian.
The motivation for thinking there might be a connection is given bold emphasis in the excerpts from yet another excellent lecture by Professor Michael Sugrue (available at
) on the Gospel of John. Several excerpts are as follows:
“The Gospel of John is a singular gospel. It is separate from the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The content of the story and the kind of Jesus story narrated in the Gospel of John is very different from the presentation of Jesus in the Synoptics. The Gospel of John is generally thought of as the most spiritual, the most abstract, and in some respects the most difficult to interpret. It is thought to be written around 90 AD, probably after the Synoptics have reached their first formulation. And traditionally, it has been written by the disciple John of Ephesus. But of course, it turns out we do not know who the author is or what the provenance is…
John is the abstract gospel which shows us what I might describe as the mystical aspect of Jesus, which separates it from the Synoptic Gospels. .. The sources for the Gospel of John are larger and more extensive than the Synoptics… In John, we are getting quite a remarkable symbolic tour-de-force which consciously borrows from the Synoptic Gospel traditions and turns them into something more than what they had been prior...
It’s also worth thinking about some of the symbolism in John- generally acknowledged to be most difficult, the most recondite, of Gospel symbolism -and the abstract nature of the words which are used. For example, John describes Jesus as the ‘Logos’ which means Word or Speech or Reason. It has a number of translations from Greek to English. The idea is that the Word is sacred, as is the sacredness of names and the magic power of names in the traditions of the Hebrew Bible. Well, the same kind of conception of the power of words vests the idea of Jesus as Logos – with abstract power and cosmic significance. Jesus is the Universal Word… It is unique to John to describe Jesus as the Logos. The Synoptic Gospels do not get to that level of symbolic depth…
What we find when we remove the skin of appearance from the Gospel messages are aspects of the Divine which are hidden and yet meant for our discovery. There is no book which will repay you a careful reading the way a reading of the Bible will. Do not overlook anything. There is nothing which should be overlooked…
The postscript (Chapter 21) is so important. It appears that this is a later addition… The Gospel of John already has a conclusion (Chapter 20); it really doesn’t need a second conclusion. Chapter 21 is loaded with symbolism...
With the proper frame of mind, the Gospels teach you how to read them. In a unique and peculiar way, they are a self-explanatory text. It’s just that the sort of explanation that is involved inquires a very considerable degree of application and symbolic play. You have to be flexible. Do not think that 2 + 2 = 4. In fact, 2 + 2 may be something else. They are not doing that sort of linear logical analysis. When you get to the symbolic level, then and only then can you begin to read the richest and most important parts of the Gospels – in this case, the Gospel of John.”
John as a mystery novel: Who was the “disciple whom Jesus loved”?
While several sections are well-known to me and read in passages, it had been a rather long time since I had read the entire book of the Bible from beginning to end.
The Gospel of John describes more interactions with individual disciples than do the synoptic gospels. In the first chapter of John, the very first words spoken by Jesus [in John 1:38, the same verse referenced above in the discussion of “Rabbi, (which translated means teacher)”] are, ‘What do you seek?’ These words are spoken to the first two disciples to follow Jesus. A point of intrigue is that John names only Andrew as one of the two disciples while the other of his first two disciples remains unnamed.
In the subsequent verses of John, Chapter 1 (verses 39-51), disciples Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathaniel (called Bartholomew in the Gospel of Matthew) are likewise named. This led me to wonder who this unnamed disciple might be.
The Gospel of John furthermore intriguingly leaves unnamed the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’. This description appears on five separate occasions:
1) John 13:23 There was reclining on Jesus’ breast one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.” The context of this verse is that, at the Last Supper, Jesus had just told his disciples that: “Truly, truly, I say unto you that one of you will betray Me.”
2) John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then He said to the disciple, Behold your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his household.”
(The context of these remarkable verses is that Jesus was near death on the cross.)
3) John 20:1-10 (which I will describe in detail later)
4) John 21:4-8 But when the day was new breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Children, you do not have any fish, do you?’ They answered Him, ‘No.’ And He said to them, ‘Cast your net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you will find a catch.’ They cast therefore, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord.’ And so when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work) and threw himself into the sea.
(For context, Peter swam to shore as the remaining disciples in the boat rowed to shore. )
5) John 21:20-25 Peter turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who had also leaned back at the supper and said, ‘Who is the one who betrays You?’ Peter therefore seeing him said to Jesus, Lord, and what about this man?
Yet another instance where John leaves a disciple unnamed occurs in:
John 18:15-16: “Simon Peter was following Jesus as was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought in Peter.”
It was a new idea to me that the Gospel of John might be read as a mystery novel: Which disciple, along with Andrew was the first to follow Jesus? And is this the same “disciple whom Jesus loved”? If not, what is the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved? Furthermore, why is the identity of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” kept a secret in the Gospel of John? Naturally, however, many people have considered this possibility, and the topic is the study of several books and scholarly articles.
Excerpts from one such article [which may be found at https://s3.amazonaws.com/5mt.bf.org/2017/10/40-Disciple-Jesus-Loved.pdf , Bulletin for Biblical Research 18.2 (2008) 209–231, “’The Disciple Jesus Loved’:Witness, Author, Apostle-A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” ] gives an introduction to some of the ongoing debate:
“Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) makes a persuasive argument that the Gospels display eyewitness testimony and thus renews the quest for the identity of the Beloved Disciple as the author of the Fourth Gospel. While Bauckham attributes this Gospel to “the presbyter John” mentioned by Papias, the authors of this study show that the patristic evidence more likely seems to support the authorship of John the apostle and that the literary device of ‘inclusio’ in the Fourth Gospel, astutely observed by Bauckham, also favors the authorship of John the son of Zebedee.
Recent years have witnessed a significant number of publications on the identity of ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ in John’s Gospel. The ever more daring proposals have included identifications of this figure as diverse as the apostle Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, James the son of Zebedee, and even the Samaritan woman, among others…”
The author provides this footnote, which is included only to show the breadth of study.
Thomas: James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 414–21. He lists and evaluates 22 proposals made by other scholars (pp. 127–224). Mary Magdalene: Joseph A. Grassi, The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992); Esther A. de Boer, The Gospel of Mary: Beyond a Gnostic and a Biblical Mary Magdalene (New York: Continuum, 2005). Lazarus: Ben Witherington III, What Have They Done with Jesus? (San Francisco: Harper, 2006), 141–56. James the son of Zebedee: Bob Thurston, affirmed in personal correspondence dated May 21, 2007. The Samaritan woman: James P. Carse, The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple (San Francisco: Harper, 1997).
***
So who is this influential disciple, so well known in the early church that sources did not need to mention his name even though rumors circulated that he would never die? Rather than explore the literature available on the subject, I decided to consider the question myself. As such, many of the ideas I present may overlap with the thoughts and analysis of others who have published material on these questions. Taking an independent path using original source material sometimes leads to new insights, which was part of my goal. The version of the Bible I consult is the New American Standard, initially published by Thomas Nelson Publishers in 1971, and its copyright date of 1977.
The logical place to begin is when the disciples first appear in Chapter 1 of the Gospel of John, which occurs just after John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God. The first two disciples were disciples of John the Baptist, which suggest that both were interested in learning and in spirituality. (As a side note, the format I elect to employ is to omit quotes when repeating Bible verses in order to avoid ambiguity when these verses quote others. Points I wish to emphasize for later purposes are placed in bold font. My own comments are given between sections in brackets.)
John 1:35-39 Again the next day, John the Baptist was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked upon Jesus as He walked, and said, “Behold the Lamb of God!” And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and beheld them following Him and said to them, “What do you seek?” And they said to Him, “Rabbi (which means Teacher), where are You staying?” He said to them, “Come and you will see.” They came therefore and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
[Naturally, this begs the question: Why would the author provide Andrew’s name but not the name of the other disciple? Who was this unnamed disciple? On this point, the Gospel of John is silent. It is significant that the first words recorded by Jesus in the Gospel of John were spoken to Andrew and this unnamed disciple. The story continues as more disciples are introduced.]
John 1:41-42 He found first his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which translated means Peter).
[Consider that, upon seeing Peter, Jesus said he ‘shall be called Cephas’. Why does the Gospel of John include this detail? Surely, other disciple names might be translated in some sense. Why is Peter being singled out in this regard?]
John 1:43 The next day He purposed to go forth into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, “Follow Me.” Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter.
[Note that Philip, being from the same city as Peter, might share some traits with Peter.]
John 1:46-47: Philip found Nathaniel and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathaniel said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathaniel coming to Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile!”
[Contrast Philip’s characterization of Jesus as the ‘son of Joseph’, to the term ‘Messiah’ used by Andrew. Unlike Philip, Nathaniel is not described as being from the same city as Peter. He also exhibits child-like traits, speaking openly and honestly about the reputation of Nazareth. Jesus immediately recognizes this aspect of Nathaniel, likely because he had sensed it previously while observing Nathaniel ‘under the fig tree’.]
John 1:48-51 Nathaniel said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathaniel answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You shall see greater things than these.” And He said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
[I believe these verses are absolutely essential to understanding the message of the Gospel of John. How does Jesus react when Nathaniel proclaims, with scant evidence, that Jesus is the Son of God? One might have expected Jesus to praise Nathaniel and hold him up as an example for the other disciples while proclaiming that Nathaniel should be their role model. Instead, Jesus reacts the way that a geometry teacher might if an earnest but inexperienced child were to express that he believes an answer-which happens to be correct-prior to its being proven. In other words, one might summarize the response of Jesus as ‘Let Me demonstrate that your intuition is correct.’
Moving ahead to John, Chapter 6, we learn more about Philip:
John 6:5-9 Jesus therefore lifting up His eyes, and seeing that a great multitude was coming to Him, said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, that these may eat?” And this He was saying to test Philip, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do. Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little.”
[Now pause and reflect that Philip perceived the question from Jesus as if he were given a logic or math problem, and in this sense he failed the test. Furthermore, his answer was not responsive to Jesus’ question in that Philip addressed ‘how’ they might acquire the bread as opposed to ‘where’. The verses suggest Philip is seeking a straightforward path to an answer instead of thinking more deeply about what Jesus might really intend by His question. In the next verse, Andrew- one of the first two disciples to follow Jesus- shows wisdom by answering Jesus’ question with a question of his own.]
John 6:8-10 One of His disciples Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people? Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down in number about five thousand.
[At this point, rather than answering Andrew’s question with a verbal explanation, Jesus performs the experiment. He feeds the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes and demonstrates only that it is possible to feed so many with so few resources- not only proving Philip incorrect, but also showing that there are twelve baskets of food left over.]
Referencing Matthew, Chapter 10:2-4, the disciples are enumerated in this order: (1) Simon Peter, (2) Andrew, (3) James the son of Zebedee, (4) John, his brother (5) Philip, (6) Bartholomew (who is called Nathaniel in the Gospel of John ), (7) Thomas, (8) Matthew, the tax gatherer, (9) James, son of Alphaeus, (10) Thaddeus, (who is called ‘Judas, not Iscariot’ in the Gospel of John) (11) Simon the zealot, and (12) Judas, the one who betrayed Him.
The disciple Thomas is commonly cited with the pejorative ‘Doubting Thomas’. Thomas does not speak in the Synoptic Gospels. In the Gospel of John, however, Thomas plays a prominent role. The first appearance of Thomas in Chapter 11 of the Gospel of John occurs in the context of the story of Lazarus. After the sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, sent word that Lazarus was very sick, Jesus first waited two days, then said to the disciples:
John 11:7-8 …“Let us go to Judea again.” The disciples replied, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone You, and You are going there again?”
[The attentive reader may notice that while Jesus used the word ‘us’, the disciples used the word ‘You’. One might find this a reasonable reaction by the disciples, considering the likelihood that they would be stoned to death if they returned to Judea. Jesus had some work to do to persuade them.]
John 11:9-15 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles because the light is not in him. This He said, and after that He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, that I may awaken him out of sleep.” The disciples therefore said to Him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep. Then Jesus therefore said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.”
[This is one of the most pivotal moments in the story of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Would the disciples risk their lives to follow Jesus, or would they instead abandon Jesus and let Him return alone? At this most critical juncture, Thomas is introduced and speaks.]
John 11:16 Thomas, therefore who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.”
[There is much to discern from this single verse. First, like Peter, Thomas is designated with the phrase ‘who is called’ before a different name. No other disciple in the Gospel of John is characterized with a curious description of a second name. This suggests to me a special connection between Thomas and Peter. Second, Thomas speaks directly to the other disciples rather than Jesus. Consider that Thomas might have replied by saying, “I will go with You,” to Jesus, merely hoping that others might follow. Instead, Thomas assumes a leadership position among the other disciples. But he does not command them to go with Jesus. Rather, he speaks in a manner which encourages them to go together. Third, Thomas expresses that dying with Jesus is an act of righteousness and, in doing so, demonstrates a great deal of courage. The outcome implies that Thomas was successful in his appeal to the other disciples.
The next verse moves the scene to the home of Lazarus, and the remainder of Chapter 11 is dedicated to the story of Lazarus in the Gospel of John, which differs significantly from that given in Matthew.]
Moving ahead to Chapter 13, contrast the response of Thomas to that of Peter shortly after Jesus said He would be betrayed by a disciple and said, “Where I am going, You cannot come,”.
John 13:37 Peter said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.”
[Note that Peter speaks of himselfand replies directly to Jesus rather than asking the other disciples to join him. Unlike the earlier instance with Thomas, the Gospel of John records a reply from Jesus, and His reply certainly must have caught Peter off-guard. ]
John 13:38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly I say to you, a cock shall not crow until you deny me three times.”
[Chapter 13 concludes with this verse, even though Jesus continues speaking to Peter and the disciples in the first verse of the next chapter. Chapter 14 of the Gospel of John is fascinating. For starters, Jesus replies to direct questions from three specific disciples – Thomas, Philip, and Judas (not Iscariot) who is called Thaddeus in the Gospel of Matthew. Additionally, He introduces the Holy Spirit to the disciples. ]
John 14:1-4 “Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.”
[At this point, Thomas asks a perceptive and logical question.]
John 14:5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?”
[The following response from Jesus suggests that he likes this question. It enables Jesus to reply succinctly with one of the most profound statements in the Scripture, which emphasizes the eternal aspect of God and Jesus, which is also found in the very beginning of Chapter 1.]
John 14:6-7 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known my Father also; from now on, you know Him, and have seen Him.”
[Then, Philip makes a remark which likely led even some of the other disciples to slap their palm against their forehead.]
John 14:8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it will be enough for us.”
[In other words, just show God to us- that’s all it will take for us to believe. Come on, Philip, get with the program. This is another example of Philip seeking an expedient and straightforward answer. Jesus replies like a frustrated teacher would with a student who is slow to catch on.]
John 14:9-10 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the father.’ Do you not believe that I am the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.”
[Later in the same reply, Jesus introduces the Holy Spirit to the disciples, which he significantly describes as the Spirit of truth. The Gospel of John emphasizes ‘truth’ in several verses. Pilate says ‘What is truth?’ to Jesus, for example.]
John 14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you.”
[The third question, posed by “Judas (not Iscariot)” as described in the New American Standard edition leads to a lengthy reply from Jesus. ]
John 14:22-24 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My word; and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.”
[The reply continues on into Chapters 15 and 16 and includes the analogy of the vinedresser.]
John 15:5 “I am the vine, you are the branches...”
[He uses the phrase “ruler of the world” to refer to Satan in John 14:30, and adds that He will not be with the disciples much longer and wishes the disciples to represent Him. Does this phrasing sound as though Jesus is expressing that His message should be spread using the format analogous to a Republic (reaching people through the disciples) as opposed to a Democracy (reaching people directly himself)? This raises an important subject. The Gospel of John includes several references to ‘the Greeks’, especially at critical times. ]
John 7:35 The Jews therefore said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go so that we shall not find Him? He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks is He?”
John 12:19-23 The Pharisees therefore said to one another, “You see that you are not doing any good; look, the whole world has gone after Him. Now, there were certain Greeks who were going to the feast; these therefore came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and begun to ask him saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus. And Jesus answered them saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”
[Note that the Greeks progress first through Philip, who is seeking a logical and expedient path to understanding Jesus. Philip works through Andrew, who handled the question about feeding the five thousand more wisely than did Philip. Andrew and Philip then together tell Jesus of the interest of the Greeks. And Jesus identifies that if even the Greeks are seeking Jesus, then the time is near for Him to be crucified and rise on the third day.
Why might the Greeks figure so prominently in the Gospel of John? Consider that the story of Socrates from roughly four centuries earlier shares some similarities to that of Jesus. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates wished to define “justice” in whereas Jesus –as described in the Gospel of John, especially-is concerned with “truth”. Socrates was condemned to death (forced to drink poison) after being found guilty in a trial. Likewise, Jesus was placed into the hands of Pilate, who was persuaded by the chief priests to crucify Him.
One of the goals of the gospels is to spread the story of Jesus far and wide. By leveraging the story of Socrates, widely known among the Greeks, John was able to communicate the message of Jesus more effectively by using familiar themes from Ancient Greece. One might anticipate that this would lead many audiences – not only the Greeks, but also those who have been influenced by them- to be more receptive to the story of Jesus. Once the Greeks express interest in Jesus, the goal of spreading the good news to the Greeks has been reached.
Is it possible that those familiar with the Greek philosophers are in fact the target audience for the Gospel of John? If so, one must begin to question whether Athens and Jerusalem are truly as far removed from one another as Lev Shestov asserts.
Returning now to the response of Jesus to the question posed by Judas (not Iscariot):]
John 15:12-14 “This is My commandment, that you love one another just as I loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends, if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you my friends, for all things I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. ”
[Part of the reply includes a phrase which harkens back to the earlier statements by Thomas and by Peter regarding their willingness to put their lives on the line. It is important to emphasize that Jesus loved all of his disciples. So the identifier the “disciple whom Jesus loved” does not mean that he exclusively loved only one disciple. Now, recall that Jesus accepted the response of Thomas willingness to ‘let us also go that we may die with Him’ but rejected Peter’s statement ‘I will lay down my life for You’. Note also the use of the pronoun “one, referring to one person”- a point which will be revisited shortly. ]
Let us reflect upon the context of the first reference to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in John 13:23. At the Last Supper, Jesus had just told his disciples that: “Truly, truly, I say unto you that one of you will betray Me.”
John 13:22-26 The disciples began looking at each one another, at a loss to know of whom He was speaking. There was reclining on Jesus’ breast one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore gestured to him and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.” He, leaning back on Jesus’ breast said to Him, “Lord, who Is it?” Jesus therefore answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him. So when He had dipped the morsel , He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
[Peter, rather than himself asking the question of Jesus, is acting through a de facto leader of the disciples. Given the leadership by Thomas in convincing the disciples to join Jesus in his trip to raise Lazarus from the dead, it is logical to consider that Thomas might be “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. A common reaction to this possibility is rule it out by identifying the verses where ‘doubt’ is addressed in relation to Thomas, and this point will be addressed in due course. In the meantime, if this seems akin to ‘ignoring the elephant in the room’, consider the story of the resurrection given in the Gospel of Mark. After Jesus had appeared to a group which included Mary Magdalene, she reported her experience to the eleven remaining disciples (Judas Iscariot no longer with them). ]
Mark 16:11-15 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way in the country. And they went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. And afterward, He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”
[In fact, the Gospel of Mark, which served as a source for the author for the Gospel of john, teaches us that all eleven of the remaining eleven disciples expressed doubt about Jesus rising from the dead, not only Thomas alone.
The next Bible verse involving the “disciple whom Jesus loved” emphasizes the closeness of the relationship between Jesus and that disciple.]
John 19:26-27 “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold your son!’ Then He said to the disciple, Behold your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his household.”
[The context of these remarkable verses is that Jesus was near death on the cross. In some respects, Jesus is specifically identifying this disciple to take his place in important earthly matters. These verse wil be revisited in the discussion of Chapter 21.
The next appearance of the “disciple whom Jesus loved” corresponds to the Resurrection and requires a longer discussion.]
John 20:1-4 Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone had been taken away from the tomb. And she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away our Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. And the two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to tomb first;
[The placement of the disciple whom Jesus loved ‘running faster than’ Peter emphasizes the leadership role of the former. Consider that in the story told in the Gospel of John, both disciples witnessed Lazarus coming back from the dead after four days. In John 11:43-44, Lazarus emerged from the grave, upon being commanded to do so by Jesus. Since it was the third day past the Resurrection, is it possible that either disciple might have hoped or anticipated that Jesus might likewise emerge from the grave? Give careful consideration to the next verse.]
John 20:5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in.
[In other words, the disciple whom Jesus loved observed the wrappings, but he did not see Jesus. Thus, the parallel to Lazarus was broken.]
John 20:6-7 Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he beheld the linen wrapping lying there, and the face-cloth, which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrapping, but coiled up in a place by itself.
[In contrast to the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, Peter entered the tomb upon arriving and closely observed the evidence. This sequence of events suggests to me that the unnamed disciple was excited by the possibility that Jesus had risen and that he might see Him resurrected in the tomb, which is why he ran ahead of Peter. He stopped at the threshold of the grave because he was disappointed that he did not find any evidence to prove this outcome within the grave, in stark contrast to the occurrence with Lazarus. Peter, on the other hand, went inside the grave to look for evidence that the body of Jesus had been moved. Unlike the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, my reading is that it had not occurred to Peter that Jesus had arisen in the manner that Lazarus had. There was therefore no reason for Peter to hesitate upon reaching the entrance to the grave. Continuing, we learn more.]
John 20:8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed.
[This statement has no predicate. What is it that the two disciples believed? The answer may be ascertained in the next verses.]
John 20:9-10 For as yet, they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes.
[The two disciples believed the account of Mary Magdalene. Whether or not the two disciples hoped or anticipated that they might find Jesus within the grave, there was no hard evidence that He had arisen. So instead of proclaiming the good news to the others, they went home.
Mary Magdalene had stayed at grave and the story continues.]
John 20:11-15 But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” When she had said this, she turned around, and beheld Jesus standing there, and did not know it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.”
[In dramatic contrast to the account from the Gospel of Mark, Mary Magdalene is characterized as having made a mistake in identifying Jesus. In Mark’s account, Jesus “reproached” the eleven disciples for not believing Mary Magdalene; but John’s account illustrates the difficulty with believing Mary Magdalene’s account at face value by stating that she mistook Jesus to be a gardener. The Gospel of John emphasizes the imperfection of human witnesses and by extension, humanity as a whole.
As in Mark, Mary Magdalene reported the interaction with the resurrected Jesus to the other disciples. Jesus appeared to a group of the disciples and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Finally, we reach the moment which led to Thomas being labeled ‘Doubting Thomas’. ]
John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[Once again, the phrase ‘called Didymus’ is added. Between the first interaction and this one, there was no reference to this second name.]
John 20:25 The other disciples were therefore saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the pace of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
[Thomas is seeking evidence beyond that provided by human witnesses. He also knows that Mary Magdalene and the other disciples truly wish for a specific outcome- that Jesus has risen- to be true. Under such circumstances, errors in judgment are more likely to occur.
Given human fallibility exemplified by Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of John might be interpreted as supporting, rather than criticizing the stance taken by Thomas. Consider that Thomas had other options in replying. Perhaps, it would have been simpler for Thomas simply to tell the other disciples that he believed, even if he did not –just to go along with his peers. But his honesty prevented him from doing so. Likewise, Thomas could have pointed to the rarity and illogical aspects of anyone rising from the dead (perhaps categorizing Lazarus as a special case involving a command from Jesus Himself) and state that He would never believe. He did neither of these, but as seen in the next verse he did continue to congregate with the other disciples who, in turn, welcomed him. Might this enduring fellowship be interpreted as an expression of faith that Jesus would appear again? ]
John 20:26-27 And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said, “Peace be with you.” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”
[There is enormous symbolism in touching Jesus, as illustrated by the story of the woman who was healed merely by touching His garment (see Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, and Luke 8:43-48). The wounds of Jesus were inflicted by the actions of the high priests and Pharisees (the nail scars from crucifixion) and the Gentiles (the scar resulting from the pierce of the spear inflicted by the Roman solider.) In touching both sets of scars, Thomas, alone among the disciples, is granted a special gift from God.]
John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
[Thomas immediately comprehends the magnitude of this gift and believes. What is the reaction of Jesus? Does he reproach Thomas for prior disbelief? The story continues.]
John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believe!”
[Jesus’ response is not presented as a reproach in the Gospel of John. Rather, it is a matter-of-fact remark that some individuals utilize reason as part of their decision-making while others rely on faith alone. An example of the latter is Nathaniel who, recall in Chapter 1, expressed his faith that Jesus was the Son of God almost immediately upon meeting Him. Nathaniel, an ‘Israelite in whom there is no guile’, is an example of one who is ‘blessed’ –fortunate to have the mindset to rely on faith and intuition. By contrast, one might consider Philip to be an example of a disciple who relies almost exclusively on reason alone .The mindset of Thomas is disciplined and measured – both reason and faith play a part. The path to belief is more difficult for Thomas than for Nathaniel, who is surely blessed. In verse John 20:28, Thomas emphatically expresses his belief. ]
Heidegger’s clue to identifying Thomas as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”
Before considering Chapter 21, I wish to lay out a different rationale for my belief that Thomas is “the disciple whom Jesus loved”- drawn from the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Recall from Professor Sugrue’s lecture that Heidegger’s intellectual development occurred while he was a Jesuit seminarian, which might have had long-term influences of which even he was unaware. Likewise, recall that one of Heidegger’s methods, outside the realm of logic, involved “implausible etymologies”. Recall that “When (Heidegger) doesn’t know the historical source of a word, I think he usually makes it up- and then provides some ‘philosophical argument’ for why only he understands the source of this word, and all the rest of the lexicographers do not”.
Given that the Gospel of John is described by Professor Sugrue as also using the “magic power of names”, why not apply Heidegger’s method to Simon Peter “called Cephas” and Thomas “called Didymus”? In other words, why should I be constrained to what other might state as the source of the word? When I hear the word ‘Didymus’, I believe it sounds like Daedalus. And in the Greek mythology, Daedalus was seen as symbol of wisdom, knowledge, and power. Among his mythological creations were the Labyrinth, built for King Minos which imprisoned the Minotaur and wings for himself and his son Icarus in order to escape Crete. As discussed above, the Gospel of John goes to great lengths to communicate to the Greeks, and the intended message is clear.
Likewise, Peter is called Cephas, which brings to my mind the story of Sisyphus. In Matthew (a source for John), chapter 16, verse 18, Jesus says “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was sentenced to rolling an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down every time it neared the top. In a sense, Jesus assumes the role of Sisyphus, voluntarily rather than as an enforced punishment, while Peter assumes the role of the boulder. Each time Peter falters, for example when he starts to drown after losing faith while walking on water (Matthew 14:22-33), Jesus lifts him back up to the surface. For another example, consider John 18:10-11, in which Simon Peter is identified as the disciple who cut off part of the ear of a slave during the arrest of Jesus. Jesus reproached Peter, saying “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?” This leads Peter away from sin.
One outcome of analyzing the story of the Gospel of John using Heidegger’s methods is that some insight can be gleaned into why the “disciple whom Jesus loved” was left unnamed. Consider
John 18:15-16: “Simon Peter was following Jesus as was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought in Peter.”
Based on the prior analysis, it would be logical to conclude that this unnamed disciple is Thomas, and thus Thomas was known to the high priest. If we were to apply the Myth of the Metals framework of Socrates, one might consider Thomas to be in the “Silver” or “Auxiliary” class. Peter, as a fisherman, would be representative of the “Bronze” (sometimes described as Iron) who are the workers of a civilization. Now, think back to John 19:26-27 when Jesus tells Thomas to take his place in earthly matters concerning His mother Mary. Symbolically, Jesus is elevating Thomas from the ‘silver’ class to the gold (or guardian) ‘class’. In the early days of Christianity, this part of the story may have resonated with those familiar with Plato’s Republic where Socrates worked to raise Glaucon from ‘silver’ to ‘gold’ through his dialogues.
Now consider that the role, according to Greek mythology, that Daedalus played as part of the auxiliary “silver” class. He designed defense structure and improve technology. Other examples of auxiliaries perform functions such as communicating messages to the masses, excelling in artwork and leading the culture of civilization of the “gold class” kings and rulers. The equivalence of Daedalus and Didymus (Thomas) then makes sense – both are part of the silver class in society.
The environment of the Roman Empire after the time of Christ was such that it could tolerate the Bronze/Iron class and slave class- believing in Christian faith. After all, the premise of Christianity is perceived as: no matter what the rulers might do to them in their lifetime, justice will be rendered in the afterlife – “the last shall become first”. Non-Christian-believers who were rulers were fine with this bargain. The prevailing attitude of the ruling class would likely have been: “Let the peasants and slaves have their fantasy as long as it keeps them docile and obedient to the ruling class during their lifetime.”
However, if Christianity is perceived by the Ruling Class as being intended to appeal to the Silver Class (the auxiliaries), that would be an entirely different kettle of fish, so to speak. If the smartest and most capable people in the kingdom seek objective truth rather than the subjective “truth” offered by an unjust king, the king has a major problem on his hands. Thomas, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, represents the Silver class. If the Gospel of John had disclosed his special status, Christian churches would have been burnt to the ground at once. Punishments of those spreading and practicing Christianity would have been much more severe than they already were. Mindful of this, the Gospel of John kept the identity of Thomas a secret.
Number magic: 153 large fishes explained
Before delving into Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John, consider additional excerpts from Professor Sugrue’s lecture on the subject –dealing with the subject of numbers. (at 12:00)
“(In John) numbers are magic (too). In other words, number magic is at least as important as word magic in the traditions of Biblical religion. Whenever you see a quantity specified for nything, stop and underline it. It means something. You are being told some special esoteric message when we get to any sort of quantity. Remember, in the Ancient world, all of knowledge is one kind of messy bunch of ideas. Astrology and astronomy are still the same discipline. And mathematics and magic are still the same discipline. It should come as no surprise that the numbers that get introduced in the Gospels and the Hebrew Bible have symbolic significance beyond what you might have expected. (Professor Sugrue provides several examples.)…
Have you noticed that the Bible seems to gravitate toward 3’s and 7’s and 12’s and 40’s? It’s not just that the world parses itself like that. I’m sure that 13 things occasionally occurred in Biblical times, and that we’d see 39 instead of 40. But 40, and 12, and 7 are symbolic numbers. And for that reason, we are not being given a naturalistic rendering of the Jesus story. We’ve been given a network of symbols. It’s not until you recognize that appearance and reality are quite different- and the depth goes much farther than you might expect- that you appreciate the gospels, in particular the Gospel of John. (To give some examples of these symbols):
1. One represents God. Yahweh is the unique monotheistic entity. One is always associated with God.
2. Two is the number of society. Deutoronomy spells out that two witnesses are required in a trial. Adam and Eve form two.
3. Three is a heavenly number, a divine number. It’s the Trinitarian number. Any time you see three of something, heavenly references are being made.
4. Four is the number of the earth, consistent with the four points of the compass, symbolic of this-worldly space and time, the human world.
5. Five is the number of man – two arms, two legs, and a head. Whenever you see five of anything, impaction and humanity is always being suggested.
6. Six is the number of evil. It is incompleteness, moral corruption.
7. Seven is the number of perfection. The addition of heaven (3) and earth (4) is seven. Whenever we see a seven in the Gospels, some union of heaven and earth is occurring at the symbolic level.
(Professor Sugrue then provides several enlightening examples of numerology in the Gospel of John and then continues.)
The most important and intractable example of numerology in the entire Biblical tradition, as far as I’m concerned, is Chapter 21 of the Book of John – the lowering of the net and the bringing up the 153 fishes. So far as I can tell, there are no other references to the number 153 in the Bible. I looked. It is the kind of thing that definitely means something deep and profound. But it is a very difficult question to tease out. I will try, towards the end of my lecture, to take a stab at undoing the cords of symbolism that bind us and prevent us from getting access to this message. But that final chapter, Chapter 21 of the Book of John, is arguably the most difficult in all the New Testament. It is Gnostic, it is full of deep and esoteric symbolism, and it is obviously a later addition – the second conclusion to the Gospel of John, as if it needed more than one. There is a great deal of number magic going on there. Read Chapter 21 of John ten times before you develop any opinions of it. It is very difficult. It will repay your careful concern…
What is stressed in Chapter 21 is that the net remains unbroken, capable of being filled to completion- filled with as much of the fish, the spiritual food of life, as can possibly be held in a human net. Now, I have read quite a bit of commentary trying to give you an explanation of what 153 means. I have to admit the numerology involved in 153 makes particle physics sound simple, makes brain surgery a walk in the park. There is an amazing amount of ink that has been spilled trying to explain these 153 fish…
Certain Biblical scholars in working on this number 153 have concluded that it is a borrowing from an earlier Pythagorean (Greek) tradition of number magic. I won’t give you the details because just the graph, the explanation of what the 153 refers to is a lecture by itself. The best analysis I’ve seen on it goes about 30 pages. It’s rocket science; it’s really hard. But I’m quite confident that if all the other numbers in the Bible mean something, they can’t be finishing off the Gospel of John capriciously or arbitrarily… To cut to the chase, the best explanation I’ve gotten is that it is Triadic symbolism…”
With Professor Sugrue’s excellent and detailed commentary as a backdrop, here is a breakdown of John Chapter 21 with the added insight, presumed of course, that Thomas is the “disciple whom Jesus loved”.
Chapter 21:1-2 After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberius, and He manifested Himself in this way. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples.
[Peter and Thomas are listed first. Nathaniel is from Cana, affirming that he is from a different place from Philip or Peter, per the commentary on Chapter 1. The sons of Zebedee are the disciples James and John. So in addition to Peter and Thomas, the other disciples amount to five, the number of humanity.]
Chapter 21:3-6 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will also come with you.” They went out, and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing. But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to them, “Children, you do not have any fish, do you?” They answered Him, “No.” And He said to them, “Cast your net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you will find a catch.” They cast therefore, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish.
[The disciples, including Thomas, joined Peter in fishing.]
Chapter 21:4-8 That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” And so when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from land, but about one hundred yards away, dragging the net full of fish.
[The “disciple whom Jesus loved” is the first to identify Jesus, and the other disciples believe him. This implies a leadership position. Peter responds enthusiastically with impulsive passion, a trait of the Bronze man as described in Plato’s Republic, by leaping into the sea to swim to shore. The other disciples do not follow Peter but rather remain in the boat with Thomas to haul in the catch.]
Chapter 21:9-14 And so when they got out upon the land, they saw a charcoal fire already laid, and fish placed upon it and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish which you have now caught.” Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of large fish; a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples ventured to question Him, “Who are You?” knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread, and gave them, and the fish likewise. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.
[This is the section given special emphasis by Professor Sugrue in his lecture.]
Chapter 21:15-17 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord, You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord, You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Shepherd my sheep.” He said to him a third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
[Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love Me” corresponding to the three denials prior to His crucifixion. These verses provide another example of Jesus playing the role similar to of Sisyphus, repeatedly raising Peter (My rock), to a higher level. The first response of Jesus is to exhort Peter to protect and care for children. The second is to move Christian society in the right direction. The third is to protect and care for Christian society. Symbolically, this may be interpreted as Jesus raising Peter from the Bronze class to the Silver class. Once again, this symbolism may resonate with Greek audiences since some scholars view Socrates as elevating Adeimantus from Bronze to Silver through his dialogues. ]
John 21:18-19 “Truly, truly, I say unto you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”
[Jesus speaks to Peter, implying that Peter will die for Christianity, for his love of Jesus.]
John 21:20-22 Peter, turning around, saw the saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who had also leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” Peter therefore seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”
[The first usage of the word “one” refers to one person- the “disciple whom Jesus loved”. The second use of the word one, again referring to one person, was spoken by the “disciple whom Jesus loved”. Recall that in reply to Philip, emphasized that seeing Jesus was equivalent to seeing God. Furthermore, Jesus introduced the Holy Spirit of truth in the same response. Therefore, the number “one” in John may be an exception to the symbolism laid out by Professor Sugrue. In the Gospel of John, “one” might instead refer to the one disciple described with the special label “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. The emphasis on the word “one” as it relates to Thomas is also reinforced by John 15:13 (see above)]
John 21:23-25 This saying therefore went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.
[The very first words of Jesus in the Gospel of John were spoken to Andrew and the unnamed disciple. The very last words were spoken by Jesus in the Bible were spoken about the “disciple whom Jesus loved”. Some interpret John 21:24 as meaning that John, son of Zebedee, for whom the gospel is named must be the “disciple whom Jesus loved”. But Chapter 1 made no mention of his brother James joining the other disciples. Also, in Mark 10:39-46, Jesus discourages John from assuming a role (as sitting on His right or left) which would be viewed as special or prideful. John would surely have been reluctant to have his own name placed an account which implied an exceptional role for himself after that experience. Perhaps that sense might be extended to all disciples.]
The importance of the role unnamed disciple, proposed herein to be Thomas, leads to a theory for the number 153. First, let us recognize that 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3 is equal to 153. So it would be logical to consider the meaning of each digit separately.
If we take:
The number 1 to represent the disciple Thomas, called Didymus
5 to represent Simon Peter (Cephas), and
3 to represent the Holy Trinity
Then, the story in Chapter 21 of John may be interpreted to have this meaning:
Consider first the spiritual and intellectual leaders from the auxiliary/silver/intellectual/creative class (like Thomas), who “touched” both the scars rendered upon Jesus by Jerusalem (faith) and by Rome, and its intellectual predecessor Athens (logic). Then consider leaders (like Peter) among the bronze/workers/humanity. Join these “silver” and “bronze” leaders together in the name of the Trinity – God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit of truth. Through Christ, these Silver and Bronze leaders will be elevated spiritually to Gold and Silver, respectively. This will lead to success of a civilization– both in building the Christian church and in building a society based on truth and justice.
This is my interpretation of the “153 large fishes in the unbroken net”.
A corroborating opinion… from Leonardo da Vinci, secretly encoded into The Last Supper
Take heed of the final statement of Professor Sugrue’s lecture which is, “Do not ever think you have gotten to the bottom of the Gospel message.” And there are many ways to interpret the Bible, so I do not endeavor to prove definitively that my interpretation of the Gospel of John, and in particular the claim that Thomas is the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, is correct. However, in this regard, I would like to identify a corroborating opinion.
Consider first that the use of Heidegger’s approach to link Thomas (Didymus) to Daedalus would have had special appeal to Leonardo Da Vinci, had it occurred to him. After all, Leonardo Da Vinci (1452 – 1519) was regarded as the Daedalus of his day. His genius and talent are so immense and well-known, it would be pointless to list them all here. Suffice it to say that he was (and is) regarded as one of the greatest scientists and artists ever to live. One of his most prominent qualities was his attention to detail. This is evident in areas of biology, and also in his artwork.
Excerpts from “What Leonardo’s depiction of Virgin Mary and Jesus tells us about his religious beliefs” April 23, 2019 by Diane Apostolos-Cappadona (at http://theconversation.com/what-leonardos-depiction-virgin-mary-and-jesus-tells-us-about-his-religious-beliefs-113902 ) provide some insight into his documented faith.
“Leonardo was one of the greatest artists in history. However, very little is known about his early life and even less so about his religious one. What is known is that he was baptized as an infant in the presence of 10 witnesses and that at the end of his life he asked for a priest to hear his last confession and administer the Last Rites. He was given a Catholic funeral and buried in consecrated ground.
Art historian Luke Syson has argued that Leonardo had solid knowledge of religious symbolism and contemporary Catholic teachings, which he combined with a humanistic approach to his art’s subjects.
An example is how Leonardo transformed the traditional image of ‘The Last Supper’ into a more human-centered drama. The traditional emphasis of the Last Supper is on the institution of the Eucharist. It forms the scriptural basis for Communion, in which bread is seen to be a symbol for Jesus’ body and wine as a symbol for his blood. Leonardo, instead, emphasized the announcement of the betrayal by one of the disciples.
For Christians, Christ was the unique son of God who was miraculously human and divine at the same time. He was identified in the New Testament as “…the Word was made flesh…” In all his art, Leonardo made this visible through the joyful demeanor of baby Jesus and the obvious display of his fully human form. Simply put, Leonardo illustrated how Jesus’ humanity came from his mother and his divinity from God.”
A second recent article about The Last Supper (from https://www.christiantoday.com/article/what-makes-leonardo-da-vincis-the-last-supper-a-timeless-masterpiece/142012.htm “What makes Leonardo da Vinci's 'The Last Supper' a timeless masterpiece?” by Duncan Williams 07 August 2024) provides a few additional points about this specific painting.
“Leonardo da Vinci's 'The Last Supper', created between 1495 and 1498, remains one of the most profound and influential Christian-themed artworks in history. Commissioned by Duke Ludovico Sforza of Milan for the refectory of the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, this fresco depicts the pivotal moment when Jesus announces that one of His disciples will betray Him, a revelation that sets the stage for His impending crucifixion. This painting transcends mere artistic representation; it vividly captures the emotional and spiritual turmoil of the apostles, each figure rendered with remarkable psychological depth…
The layers of meaning in 'The Last Supper' have intrigued scholars and theologians for centuries. While some interpretations suggest hidden messages or esoteric symbols, many of these theories remain speculative. The arrangement of the figures, their gestures, and the interplay of light and shadow may indeed offer deeper insights into da Vinci's religious and philosophical reflections. However, these interpretations often reflect a broader quest to understand Leonardo's spiritual and intellectual world rather than definitive answers.
Today, 'The Last Supper' is housed in the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan. Due to its fragile condition and the importance of preserving this masterpiece, public access is carefully controlled. Visitors must secure tickets in advance to view the painting, as the number of visitors is limited to protect the artwork from deterioration.
Monetarily valuing 'The Last Supper' is a daunting task; its significance extends far beyond financial worth. Its true value lies in its cultural and historical impact, which cannot be quantified. The fresco is celebrated not only for its artistic excellence but also for its enduring influence on art, culture, and religious reflection…
Leonardo da Vinci's religious views were complex, intertwining with his broader intellectual pursuits. His engagement with Christian themes was significant, yet his work often transcended traditional interpretations, blending spiritual inquiry with philosophical exploration. This nuanced approach imbues his art with a timeless quality, offering both inspiration and reflection to audiences across generations.”
Another source ( https://mymodernmet.com/leonardo--da-vinci-the-last-supper (“Dissecting Leonardo da Vinci’s Famous ‘The Last Supper’ Painting” by Kelly Richman-Abdou, February 2022) helpfully points out that “Specifically, Sforza asked Leonardo to depict Jesus' final meal as described in the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Bible.”
Ms. Richman-Abdou adds:
“In popular culture, Leonardo's The Last Supper is particularly well-known for the speculation that surrounds it. In The Templar Revelation, authors Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince claim that the figure believed to be John is actually Mary Magdalene, a woman featured in the gospels. This theory is famously further explored in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Additionally, Italian musician Giovanni Maria Pala believes he has discovered hidden musical notes in the composition. When played, they produce a piece that Pala says ‘sounds like a requiem.’”
A website maintained by Isabella Meyer (at https://artincontext.org/the-last-supper-da-vinci ) provides details identifying each disciple in The Last Supper mural. Her narrative of the disciples and their respective reactions when Jesus announces that one of His disciples will betray Him, is a fairly conventional way of explaining The Last Supper, though naturally there are some variations among art critics. To guide the reader, an image from https://leonardodavincisinventions.com/leonardo-da-vinci-paintings/the-last-supper/ is where the names of each disciple are given. Note also that in this image (and reference), conventional thinking is also represented in that the disciple John, rather than Thomas, is presumed to be “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Consider the following excerpts (from Isabella Meyer):
“Seated by the table, the figures are divided into four groups of three. Originally, only the figures of Jesus, Judas, John, and Peter were identifiable, however, due to other sources (reportedly da Vinci’s notebooks and other copies of this painting), all the figures were able to be identified. Each group also expresses a certain emotional reaction upon hearing the news from Jesus.
From the far left to the right, the first group consists of Bartholomew (Nathaniel), James the Less (or Son of Alphaeus), and Andrew, whose hands are raised as if indicating to stop or slow down – all three characters depict emotions of surprise…
The next group starts with Peter leaning over at John, whose head tilts to the left side towards Peter. Peter’s left hand is on John’s right shoulder. John’s hands are both clasped, resting on the table. He is also the youngest of the twelve apostles and is described as having a “swooning” disposition…
Judas Iscariot sits next to Peter, but in the painting, he appears more in front of both Peter and John…
In the center is the figure of Jesus Christ. His countenance is one of openness, suggesting his blessing of food and wine, also referred to as the Holy Sacrament and Eucharist.
When we look at the next group of three figures to the right (on Jesus’ left), we notice James, whose arms are wide open, illustrating a stunned reaction. Next to him, but appearing almost behind him, is Thomas, whose only point of identification is his raised index finger. The raised index finger is possibly a connection to Christ’s Resurrection and when Thomas needed to verify Jesus’ wounds by touching them with his own hands. Lastly, we see Philip with a questioning expression, as if he is urging Jesus to give him an explanation.
The last group of three depicts Matthew and Jude Thaddeus turned towards Simon the Zealot, who sits at the far right from our view, and the far left from Jesus’ side, at the end of the table. Matthew and Thaddeus are both seemingly questioning Simon and seeking some sort of answer to what is going on after Jesus gave the news…
The Last Supper by da Vinci has been the topic of numerous religious conspiracy theories, becoming a symbol of mystery with “hidden” messages. One common conspiracy theory worth noting is the figure of John sitting next to Jesus’s right (our left) who has been reported to, in fact, be Mother Mary. (In a caption, the article adds “but speculated in the 2003 book The Da Vinci Code and similar works to be Mary Magdalene”)
Almost all Last Supper paintings before da Vinci’s version depict John in a feminine manner, and da Vinci also copied the primary characteristics of these previous depictions. We will notice John’s figure always has a languid body posture, commonly depicted reclining or sleeping next to Jesus. He has also been described as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ in the Gospel of John.”
***
Let us reconsider the painting in light of the foregoing analysis of the Gospel of John. In the traditional narrative, the disciple at the highest point in the painting, suggesting a positive feature of an individual, is said to be Philip. This outcome is surprising, given that in the Gospel of John, Philip interpreted Jesus as posing a math or accounting problem when asking where to find food to feed the five thousand. Moreover, recall that Jesus admonished Philip in John 14:9-10 (Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip?). One might have expected Philip to be placed rather far away from Jesus rather than being given special positive treatment.
By contrast, one might have expected Nathaniel (also called Bartholomew in some accounts) to be given special positive treatment since he recognized at once that Jesus truly was the Son of God. Recall from John 21:2 that Nathaniel was specified as a disciple on the boat when Jesus appeared for the final time. It certainly is a surprise to see him seated so far away from Jesus in the painting.
Now let us consider the positions of the sons of Zebedee, James and John. Consider that Da Vinci may have consulted the Gospel of Mark:
Mark 10:35-45: And James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Him saying to Him, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do?” And they said to Him, “Grant that we may sit in Your glory, one on Your right and one on Your left.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” And they said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. But to sit on My right and on my Left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” And hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. And calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you will be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
This Scripture reading is very informative. In naming the sons of Zebedee, the ordering is always “James and John”. Many interpretations suggest that James is older than John. Likewise, the arrangement of “right and left” is consistent. It is somewhat surprising then that, according to the conventional interpretation, Da Vinci seemingly reverses the ordering in The Last Supper, with James on His left and John on His right.
Sitting next to Jesus is highly symbolic, and yet James (son of Zebedee) does not figure prominently in the Gospel of John (though the Synoptic Gospels give him a much more significant role). However, James is the only disciple whose martyrdom is recorded in the Scripture:
Acts 12:2-3 “And he (Herod) had James the brother of John put to death with the sword. And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also…”
It seems that things are rather confusing, so let us try out a “conspiracy theory” and see whether it helps. If we replace John (as conventionally placed) with Mary Magdalene, does that make sense? Personally, I do not see how it would. Leonardo Da Vinci is precise in the details all of his work – in the disciplines of both science and art. The story of Mary Magdalene at the tomb precludes her from being the “disciple whom Jesus loved”. Moreover, she failed to recognize Jesus, mistaking him for the gardener. By contrast the “disciple whom Jesus loved” was the first to recognize Jesus from the boat in Chapter 21. It seems to me that replacing the disciple said to be John with Mary Magdalene is more akin to saying that “Demetrius is Mary-Ann now,” than a serious attempt to solve the puzzle of Da Vinci’s The Last Supper.
I do have a different idea however. What if we were to do the equivalent of “casting our nets on the other side of the boat”?
Let’s swap the positions of Philip and Nathaniel. Now things start to make sense. Philip is now seated at the farthest point from Jesus while Nathaniel (Bartholomew) now reaches the highest at highest point in picture, consistent with being “blessed” since he “did not see and yet believed”. Note that Nathaniel is touching his heart and leaning toward Jesus. Look closely at his facial expression, and it seems that Nathaniels’s focus is on the fact that Jesus is facing death rather than being concerned about who will betray Him. It is this pure and innocent response, like that of a child, which sets Nathaniel apart from the other disciples.
Let’s also swap the positions of James and John. Now, the figure which is leaning back at the right hand of Jesus is seen to be James. His closed eyes and calm expression can be understood to be foreshadowing the death of James, “put to death by the sword” of Herod’s men in Acts, Chapter 12. Recall also the words of Jesus from Mark, Chapter 10 “You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
Now consider John (now viewed as being on Jesus’ left hand). Do you notice how he obscures the view of Thomas? And does it seem as though he is perhaps holding Thomas back, perhaps in order to prevent Thomas from leaning against the breast of Jesus and therefore being identified as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”? This might be interpreted as the Gospel of John (generally attributed to the disciple John in the time of Da Vinci) protecting the special role of (silver class) Thomas. Observe also that John’s right hand, near Thomas, is raised higher than his left hand, near Nathaniel. Might this hint at the true role of Thomas, exemplified when Jesus spoke the words, “Woman, behold your son!” to His mother Mary as He neared death on the cross, even though Philip is blessed for having the faith to believe in Jesus as the Son of God almost immediately after meeting Him?
Now let’s consider Peter. In the traditional interpretation, Peter is perceived to be gesturing or speaking to the figure adjacent to him and leaning toward him. If we now take that to be James (rather than John), the closeness of James and Peter can be interpreted as foreshadowing Acts Chapter 12:3 where Herod arrested Peter after killing James. But what about the gesture and words spoken to the “disciple whom Jesus loved”? Follow the intent gaze of Peter to the viewer’s right – past Jesus – and Peter’s eyes meet those of Thomas. Perhaps a nod from Peter and a silent mouthing of “ask Him who” is intended for Thomas.
Now, let’s consider Thomas. Which disciple’s head is closest to that of Jesus? Thomas. How many fingers does Thomas raise? One. According to John 21:20, what does the “disciple whom Jesus loved” inquire of Jesus? “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
It seems that indeed we have “found a catch” by “casting the net on the other side of the boat”. But what would motivate Leonardo Da Vinci to intentionally mislead those admirers of his artwork by giving incorrect names to these four disciples? Consider that Da Vinci lived in what today might be called a “tough neighborhood”.
Consider these excerpts from “Machiavelli, Leonardo & Borgia: A Fateful Collusion”, a fascinating story at https://storiainrete.com/machiavelli-leonardo-borgia-a-fateful-collusion/ by Paul Strathern. “History Today March 2009 | Volume: 59 Issue: 3 | Page 15-19”
“During the latter half of 1502, when the Italian Renaissance was at its height, three of its most distinguished yet disparate figures travelled together through the remote hilly region of the Romagna in north-eastern Italy. Cesare Borgia (1475-1507), backed by his father Pope Alexander VI (1431-1503), was leading a military campaign whose aim was to carve out his own personal princedom. He had hired Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) as his chief military engineer whose brief was to reinforce the castles and defenses in the region as well as to construct a number of revolutionary new military machines, which he had designed in his notebooks. Accompanying this unlikely duo was the enigmatic figure of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), who had been dispatched by the Florentine authorities as an emissary to the travelling ‘court’ with instructions to ingratiate himself with Borgia and, as far as possible, discover his intentions towards Florence whose position to the west, just across the Apennine mountains, left it particularly vulnerable to Borgia’s territorial ambitions.
In a characteristically Machiavellian situation Borgia knew perfectly well what Machiavelli was up to and Machiavelli knew that he knew this. Machiavelli had been instructed to send regular diplomatic dispatches back to Florence, reporting on all he had discovered. Machiavelli well understood that Borgia was intercepting these dispatches and reading them himself, discarding those he felt should not be sent. As a result, Machiavelli would often resort to alluding in the most oblique form to what was actually taking place. Borgia, a man whose considerable intellect matched his reputation for treachery and violence, was not fooled by this. He knew that the Florentine authorities would certainly have established a simple code with Machiavelli before he had set out. Remarks about the mountains, the local people, the weather and even the state of Machiavelli’s accommodation might all refer to vital intelligence.
Machiavelli’s information came from a number of unlikely sources. Sometimes it even came directly from Borgia himself, but could he believe what Borgia told him? Machiavelli had to be guarded about any other sources of information, which usually came from careless remarks let drop by secretaries or high-ranking officers among Borgia’s entourage whom Machiavelli had befriended. Though everyone knew Machiavelli was a spy, there was something wittily subversive in his character which seemed to appeal to them. This also appealed to Borgia himself: here was a man of some learning, whose intellect matched his own, who genuinely appeared more interested in discussing philosophical ideas than in performing the task of a mere envoy…
Borgia’s reasons for hiring Leonardo da Vinci were obvious. Besides being known as a great artist, he had already established himself as the most ingenious and talented military engineer in Italy. Yet why on earth should an artist of such refined sensibilities as Leonardo simply abandon painting to face the rigours as well as the dangers of campaign life with a man as notorious as Borgia. The evidence suggests that Leonardo was going through something of a crisis at this time. He had grown tired of painting – so much so that he had already become notorious for leaving canvases and frescoes unfinished because he had ‘solved’ their difficulties and they thus no longer interested him. He wished to have time to pursue his inventive and ingenious scientific pursuits, which he secretly jotted down in his coded notebooks, and perhaps felt that the freedom given to him by Borgia would let him do this…
In his time, Leonardo da Vinci would be employed by some of the most powerful and flamboyant figures of his age – ranging from Lorenzo the Magnificent of Florence to Galleazzo ‘il Moro’ Sforza, who murdered his way to becoming Duke of Milan; from the young Francis I of France, king of the most powerful nation in Europe, and to Cesare Borgia, a man whose misdeeds were of such enormity that he has become a byword for evil…
We know that Borgia and Machiavelli formed a close, if somewhat wary, friendship. Leonardo’s reactions to his companions are less clear: Borgia is mentioned just once, in an aside, in his notebooks. What we do know is that during the course of Leonardo’s travels of inspection for Borgia he came across the mountainous landscape in the upper Arno valley that would form the mysterious background to the Mona Lisa, one of the few paintings he would keep in his possession to the end of his days, constantly returning to it, pondering its composition, emphasising or toning down details and so forth…
Leonardo’s scientific legacy – to say nothing of the groundbreaking anatomical investigations that took him so much effort and caused him so much trouble – would play no part whatsoever in the advancement of science. All those ingenious devices, the working machines (from helicopters to submarines), the screws, the gears, the ‘hodometer’ (for the precise measuring of distances, invented for Borgia), all this came to nothing. In the event, the notebooks would be sold off after Leonardo’s death, sometimes a few separated sheets at a time, to rich collectors. These souvenir hunters had no conception of what Leonardo’s notebooks were about and regarded them merely as curiosities of genius. They could not even read the mirror-written Latin instructions beside the drawings, a simple code whose secretive crabbed script was not fully deciphered until well over a century later. The waste is inestimable. If Galileo (born less than half a century after Leonardo’s death) had been able to peruse Leonardo’s notebooks, entire new branches of science might have come into being, while others would have made significant advances, in some cases centuries before they in fact did so.
How did Borgia contribute to this psychological flaw in Leonardo? And why did Machiavelli make Borgia the exemplary hero of his notorious political treatise The Prince? Ironically, the reason for these two disparate effects is the same: Borgia’s duplicitous ruthlessness. A supreme example of this was witnessed by both Machiavelli and Leonardo on the occasion when Borgia charmed his treacherous commanders into meeting him for a reconciliation at the town of Sinigallia, assuring them that he could not fulfill his ambitions without them – then had them all murdered. Some were garrotted in his presence, others transported in cages and slaughtered later.
Machiavelli’s initial dispatch to Florence describing these events indicates that he was almost out of his wits with terror. News of the betrayals spread fast and Sinigallia was in mayhem as Borgia’s troops went on the rampage, beyond the control of even their redoubtable commander. We can only imagine how this must have affected the sensitive mind of Leonardo, who was with Machiavelli on this occasion. The oblique, ever-secretive Leonardo makes no mention of this event in his notebooks. Such an omission is not unusual; he often simply shut out from his mind any upsetting reality he could not face. But this horrific event would have its effect nonetheless – almost at once it would accentuate what might be termed his ‘intellectual stutter’. The meticulous details of his observations would lose any semblance of overall fluency as the intensity of his mind darted from one idea to another. It was at this time that he attempted to explain this curious mental tic (to himself?) by writing beside a diagram in his notebook that he would not complete this project because of ‘the evil nature of man’…”
One motivation for Leonardo da Vinci to hide his true interpretation of the Gospel of John from typical admirers of The Last Supper is that he did not wish to make himself a target of the rulers of his day. Had Da Vinci spoken loudly to proclaim why Thomas was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, he himself would have become a target of some of the most ruthless men on earth, and the reason for this is clear. Da Vinci himself was not simply among the ‘silver’ class, he was clearly its leader- recognized as the Daedalus of his time. If he dared to amplify himself to such a level by drawing parallels between himself and “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, rulers like Galleazzo ‘il Moro’ Sforza or Cesare Borgia would have struck him down before he seriously threatened their own power. Just as Herod perceived a threat from Jesus, Sforza and Borgia may have felt the same about Leonardo da Vinci. As Leonardo was aware he was considered to be the new Daedalus, there can be no doubt he was mindful of the story of Icarus and his imprudent flight to fatal heights.
Does it seem that the reason why Leonardo da Vinci hid his true message in The Last Supper parallels the motivation for withholding the name of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in the Gospel of John? One must be wary of the many and diverse threats to true Christians and Christianity as a whole. It makes a person wonder- if the threat to disclose Thomas as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, lasted for 1500 years, does it persist yet today?
One minor point in the “Machiavelli, Leonardo & Borgia: A Fateful Collusion” story is that Leonardo da Vinci held on to the Mona Lisa, “one of the few paintings he would keep in his possession to the end of his days.” Another such painting which Leonardo da Vinci kept safely in his possession is the great work, “John the Baptist”, said to be his final painting (https://artincontext.org/saint-john-the-baptist-by-leonardo-da-vinci which states:
“Saint John the Baptist, a masterful painting by Leonardo da Vinci, stands as a profound representation of the Renaissance artist’s skill and philosophical depth. Created between 1513 and 1516, this iconic artwork depicts John the Baptist in a mystic, almost otherworldly light, characterized by Leonardo’s signature use of chiaroscuro. The figure’s serene yet enigmatic expression, coupled with the delicate handling of light and shadow, reflects Leonardo’s intense study of human anatomy and emotion...
Da Vinci worked in various Italian cities, such as Florence and Milan, before moving to France in his later years. In France, under the patronage of King Francis I, he produced some of his notable works, including Saint John the Baptist.”
Recalling John 1:35-39, it was John the Baptist who encouraged Andrew and the unnamed disciple to follow Jesus, saying of Him, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” Do you notice that, in the painting, John the Baptist is holding up one finger – his right index finger? Is not the disciple Thomas also holding up one finger – his right index finger in The Last Supper? My instinct is that Leonardo da Vinci is communicating outside the realm of mere language, his hidden meaning.
On this point, I would add that the value of John the Baptist and The Last Supper, is that the artworks communicate Da Vinci’s understanding of the Gospel of John in a fashion which transcends language. In this respect, it shares commonality with the polyglossia of the Pentecost. Other great paintings by gifted artists likewise transcend language, and the role art plays in (for starters) Western civilization is immensely valuable.
The Mona Lisa smile -God’s love through Christ?
I would like to add just one more idea, and it truly is nothing more than that. The subtle smile on the figure of John the Baptist reminds me of another smile of Leonardo da Vinci’s creation. Does it not share some resemblance to the smile of Mona Lisa? It is difficult to maintain a secret as monumental as the (presumed) identity of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” to oneself once the Gospel of John is deciphered. Trust me – I know. Could it be that Leonardo da Vinci found in one model, a soul with whom he might share his secret? Perhaps the model was herself of the ‘silver’ class and, once enlightened by Da Vinci, grasped the cosmic enormity and spiritual depth of this amazing, yet perilous, message in the Gospel of John. Could it be that the Mona Lisa smile is an expression of her quiet acceptance of God’s love through Jesus Christ?
So how did you do?
Dear reader, may I ask you to reflect upon your reaction when you read the subtitle, “The Da Vinci code is deciphered and explained in this article. Do you believe me?”
I admire those of you who had the remarkable and rare intuition to say ‘yes’ at the outset. After all, people have been trying to solve this puzzle for 500 years. It’s a big ask. I extend my heartiest congratulations to you.
Perhaps some of you were hesitant to believe at the beginning and remain reluctant even now, despite having seen such a compelling argument (if I may be so bold) that the Da Vinci code has indeed been deciphered. Naturally, I cannot make Leonardo da Vinci appear before you to explain it all himself. I’m basically all you have, and I know that makes things difficult. Perhaps if you knew me better, you might understand that my intentions are honorable and true. Nonetheless, I understand your honest reservations, even if I am rather disappointed. May I suggest you read through the article again sometime in the future and give it some more thought?
I am especially grateful to those of you who were initially uncertain about my bold statement in the subtitle but gave me a chance and now comprehend my logical deciphering of both “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and the actual Da Vinci code. I am very gratified to be deemed worthy of your support. It means a lot to me. It is difficult as the author to place myself in the position of the reader, but I honestly believe that this is also the position in which I would find myself if I were reading this article.
To each of these foregoing three groups, I extend to you my love and appreciation.
Unfortunately, there is another group of people who have my total disdain. These are the ones who are fully aware that the logic in the account I give in this article is sound. Yet they seek every opportunity to undermine my message. They will pretend ignorance and then poke and prod at very little detail- what about this?, what about that? Are you saying Socrates is Jesus? (no) Isn’t blasphemy to construct your own story of the temptation of Jesus? (no) Some may even proclaim their agreement with my arguments, with their only motivation being to lead others astray in some future activity. Et cetera, et cetera. To paraphrase John 8:44, they are of their father, the devil. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in truth. These people are also liars, and I want nothing to do with them.
A different path to Heidegger’s insight, through Athens
It is tempting to stop at this juncture. After all, a 500-year-old hidden code has (apparently) been deciphered by first (apparently) solving a nearly 2,000-year-old mystery. That’s a pretty decent achievement for one Substack article (though a rather long one).
Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to celebrate these achievements because I cannot shake the sense that there is a small, perhaps we should call them ‘elite’, group of people who have known about both of these logical arguments for centuries.
Isn’t it fascinating that the atheist existentialist Martin Heidegger’s methods, wordplay outside the realm of logic, work so effectively in teasing out the message in the Gospel of John? Suppose we think of the Gospel of John as a literary ‘artwork’ and further apply Heidegger’s philosophy that ‘truth’ originates in ‘artwork’. Then, according to Heidegger, hit seems that we proven that the Gospel of John is Truth. But if The Gospel of John is Truth and if it teaches us that Truth is objective and not subject to the will of man, then have we then proven that Heidegger is wrong about the source of Truth? Well, according to Professor Sugrue, “Heidegger will say, ‘So much for you and your logic. Confront Being as it really is.’”
What if there is instead a logical explanation for the success of Martin Heidegger’s methods? Recall Professor Sugrue characterization of Heidegger’s philosophy as “abstract Jesuit theology – de-theologized. You hold on to the structure, you leave out the content – things are going to get very weird.” What if Heidegger, rather creating philosophical “artwork”, was instead generating “equipment” to be used by ‘elite’ class which intends to destroy Christianity and replace it with a new religion, in which the ‘elite’ class is able to dictate ‘truth’? Is it so far-fetched to think that Heidegger, once seen a useful tool by the Nazis might serve the same capacity for some ‘elite’ group in the post-war era?
So now let us entertain the possibility that the strategy of an ‘elite’ group intending to destroy Christianity might be, speaking metaphorically, to ‘break the net’ containing the 153 large fishes. An effective tactic would be to depict Christian thought leaders, like Thomas, as non-Christian in their beliefs and actions. Now let us reflect back on the philosophy of Shestov, who contended that one must choose between Athens and Jerusalem – between logic and faith. First of all, in my judgment Shestov is incorrect. Not only does the disciple Thomas embody the combination of both Athens and Jerusalem, the coalescence of the traits of Athens (reason) and Jerusalem (faith) into one entity is one of the main themes running through the entire Book of John. Shestov then characterized Fyodor Dostoyevsky as ‘abandoning logic’ to ‘embrace faith’, at least at the surface level. A more nuanced interpretation of Shestov suggests his true intent seems to me to be to characterize Dostoyevsky as an atheist.
If we accept that an ‘elite’ group wishes to destroy Christianity by stripping Christianity from the most capable of the creative class, an obvious target is Dostoyevsky. This possibility returns us to an unanswered question: Why is it that the Pritzker family rapidly emerged as one of the 15 wealthiest on the planet, and yet their most famous member in the 1930’s, Lev Shestov, is somehow forgotten? Is it possible that this befuddling outcome is a result of a plan to enrich the Pritzkers for “equipment” constructed by Shestov designed to malign Dostoyevsky’s reputation by stripping away his Christian faith in historical accounts of his life? Could it be that Shestov’s family members, once richly rewarded for this service, might serve as facilitators of additional plans of this ‘elite’ group?
If so, one might expect the same treatment of other Christians who, like Dostoyevsky have the rare combined gifts of Thomas – Athens and Jerusalem, logic and faith. Another obvious target would be Leonardo Da Vinci. Was he targeted in a manner similar to that applied to Dostoyevsky?
In recent years, it has been suggested that the Mona Lisa is actually a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, as he envisioned himself as a woman. Furthermore, the figure at the right hand of Jesus in The Last Supper (traditionally said to be John and which I argue depicts James) is Mary Magdalene. Both of these stories promote the idea that Leonardo da Vinci embraced transsexual identity. However, it is not necessary to consider only recent stories which imply that Da Vinci was somehow outside the teachings of the Scripture in his sexuality.
According to the website used to purchase tickets to visit Da Vinci’s The Last Super mural in Milan, https://lastsupperticket.com/blog/was-leonardo-da-vinci-,arroed/#sidr-main :
“Given the absence of information regarding Leonardo’s romantic life, many have speculated that he may have been either completely celibate or homosexual. However, it is essential to acknowledge that these theories are based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence. Consequently, we cannot definitively confirm or refute these hypotheses.”
Freudian slips into the dreams and thoughts of Da Vinci
From whom did such arguments originate? As it happens, Sigmund Freud is the key source, according to the story at https://theconversation.com/how-sigmund-frued-attempted-to-solve-the-riddle-of-leonardo-da-vince-genius-238041 titled “How Sigmund Freud Attempted to Solve the ‘Riddle’ of Leonardo da Vinci’s Genius” by Luke Thurston. Excerpts include:
“…Freud’s obsession with da Vinci merged with his wider interests in how the unconscious memory of a child’s earliest relations to others (always for Freud charged with sexuality) could either energise or hinder creativity later in life. Because da Vinci left such detailed notes about his own chaste and self-disciplined life, Freud felt justified in his assumptions: here was someone whose erotic life had morphed into intellectual and creative activities.
Freud thought this might be why da Vinci had such extraordinary cognitive and artistic powers, but also why his work is so strange and hard to decipher. What Freud found most striking about da Vinci was his combination of scientific problem-solving and artistic production, above all because there was, he thought, an essential conflict between these activities…
When it comes to the famous paintings that have puzzled art critics for centuries, Freud sees da Vinci again dramatising this split between the creative self and some unknown, enigmatic impulse. Mona Lisa’s famously enigmatic smile comprises, Sigmund Freud writes: ‘the contrast between reserve and seduction, and between the most devoted tenderness and a sensuality that is ruthlessly demanding – consuming men’...”
To learn more about Sigmund Freud, I once more turned to a lecture by Professor Michael Sugrue. This excerpt starts at about the 13-minute mark:
“(In 1895) Freud published a study on hysteria and worked out his ‘Seduction Theory of Hysteria’- the idea that these hysterical women (in a study group) are hysterical because earlier in their life, they had been somehow sexually traumatized by some figure in their family. And that they had repressed these memories which were unconsciously being symbolized in these (physical) symptoms.
Now look here at the idea of the unconscious. The unconscious is what bridges the gap between the child and the adult. That’s why it is going to be so fruitful for generating a theory of neurosis. The difficulty he encountered is that so many of these women seemed to claim early-childhood sexual abuse that Freud thought it was phony. After thinking about it, he said this is probably a fantasy on their part. Probably, this did not happen.
Now, there’s recently (in the 1990’s) been quite a bit of controversy about this, and I won’t enter into this controversy because of the fact that I don’t think it is a knowable proposition. These women that Freud talked to- were they or weren’t they sexually abused? Frankly, I don’t know. The evidence we have is just inconclusive. It is possible to read it either way. Or, more likely, some of them probably were telling the truth, and some of them weren’t… And we don’t have one logical decision-making procedure to find out who is who… This is going to be one of the characteristic problems with Freudianism. It is more of a hermeneutic - a principle of interpretation- than it is a science. And the difficulty that emerges is that principles of interpretation offer a realm of possibilities. So Freud vascillates for a while about the origins of hysteria, and then comes up with the idea that it’s not a question of seduction. Rather, it’s the projection of these women’s unconscious sexual fantasies. And that’s the difficulty –that there’s some sort of blockage (sublimation) of this sexual energy…
(at 26:00) Toward the end of his life, Freud begins to put together a pessimistic social and political thought, which is the extrapolation (from) some of these ideas of the individual (to) those inevitable frustrations which society as a whole offers us. In Future of an Illusion (1927), the argument Freud makes is that the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity and Islam is in fact really an infantile neurosis. It’s an inflated desire for a permanent “Universal Daddy”. God is the “Big Sky-Daddy” that supervises everything and runs everything. He’s omnipotent, omniscient, and He’s just a really wonderful guy, just the way you thought your daddy was when you were one year old. Now the difficulty is that individuals (get older) and they no longer think that their daddy is omnipotent of omniscient, or the best daddy in the world... What Freud says is that we project our unconscious longings for love, moral security, moral order, and we react to the ‘pleasure principle’ -our desire to believe (in God) rather than the ‘reality principle’ which says, ‘Look, there is no such thing (as God)”.
Freud was very influenced by Nietzsche. He had great admiration for Nietzsche, and he had the same ruthless Nietzschean drive toward the disillusion of our ‘happy illusions’…
(Later) The best you’re going to do is sublimation. Some small percentage of society is so gifted that they take their unconscious sexual aggressive desires and sublimate them -transform them into something creative and beautiful and socially desirable, like art religion, and philosophy. Freud is going to say that all the great artists are wounded distorted psyches that are compensating for various kinds of psychic defects by projecting this beautiful stuff onto the Sistine Chapel… It is a reductive argument, and it is not at all clear that’s what all art is – a sublimation of sexual desire…
(33:00) Now I’d like to talk about some of the difficulties (with Freud), and there are many of them… Let’s think about the problem of falsifiability… How do you know that the dark stranger in a dream always represents your father? You can’t go to the lab and find that out. There’s no test you can do. So science-minded people are going to say that if you can’t test it, it has the same status as religion or literary criticism… (Freud’s philosophy) is never going to reach the scientific certainty that most of us long for.”
***
The article by Luke Thurston helpfully links text written by Sigmund Freud himself on this subject in 1910, titled “Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood” which can be found at:
Freud: “The slowness with which Leonardo worked was proverbial. He painted at the Last Supper in the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, after the most thorough preparatory studies, for three whole years. One of his contemporaries, Matteo Bandelli, the story-writer, who at the time was a young monk in the convent, tells how Leonardo often used to climb up the scaffolding early in the morning and remain there till twilight never once laying his brush aside, and with no thought of eating or drinking. Then days would pass without his putting his hand to it. Sometimes he would remain for hours in front of the painting, merely examining it in his mind…
Observation of men’s daily lives shows us that most people succeed in directing very considerable portions of their sexual instinctual forces to their professional activity. The sexual instinct is particularly well fitted to make contributions of this kind since it is endowed with a capacity for sublimation: that is, it has the power to replace its immediate aim by other aims which may be valued more highly and which are not sexual… The core of his nature, and the secret of it, would appear to be that after his curiosity had been activated in infancy in the service of sexual interests he succeeded in sublimating the greater part of his libido into an urge for research. But it is not easy, to be sure, to prove that this view is right…
We cannot expect to find in Leonardo anything more than traces of untransformed sexual inclination. But these point in one direction and moreover allow him to be reckoned as a homosexual. It has always been emphasized that he took only strikingly handsome boys and youths as pupils. He treated them with kindness and consideration, looked after them, and when they were ill nursed them himself, just as a mother nurses her children and just as his own mother might have tended him…
(p. 2276) We realize that we shall have to meet the objection that Leonardo’s behaviour towards his pupils has nothing at all to do with sexual motives and that it allows no conclusions to be drawn about his particular sexual inclination. Against this we wish to submit with all caution that our view explains some peculiar features of the artist’s behaviour which would otherwise have to remain a mystery. Leonardo kept a diary; he made entries in his small hand (written from right to left) which were meant only for himself. It is noteworthy that in this diary he addressed himself in the second person... Leonardo is behaving here like someone whose habit it was to make his daily confession to another person and who uses his diary as a substitute for him.”
[At this point, Sigmund Freud goes into a long and winding dialogue regarding the reasons Leonardo Da Vinci paid for his mother’s funeral and also for daily expenses for the boys in his care. Freud ultimately simultaneously speculates and concludes that sexual impulses toward his own mother evolved into homosexual impulses for the boys. Freud analyzes a dream of a vulture described by Da Vinci to bolster his claim.]
“On that view, his mother and his pupils, the likenesses of his own boyish beauty, had been his sexual objects - so far as the sexual repression which dominated his nature allows us so to describe them - and the compulsion to note in laborious detail the sums he spent on them betrayed in this strange way his rudimentary conflicts. From this it would appear that Leonardo’s erotic life did really belong to the type of homosexuality whose psychical development we have succeeded in disclosing, and the emergence of the homosexual situation in his phantasy of the vulture would become intelligible to us: for its meaning was exactly what we have already asserted of that type. We should have to translate it thus: ‘It was through this erotic relation with my mother that I became a homosexual .’…
[Freud also analyzes Leonardo’s artwork and provides commentary on the Mona Lisa smile.]
“Anyone who thinks of Leonardo’s paintings will be reminded of a remarkable smile, at once fascinating and puzzling, which he conjured up on the lips of his female subjects. It is an unchanging smile, on long, curved lips; it has become a mark of his style and the name ‘Leonardesque’ has been chosen for it. In the strangely beautiful face of the Florentine Mona Lisa del Giocondo it has produced the most powerful and confusing effect on whoever looks at it. This smile has called for an interpretation, and it has met with many of the most varied kinds, none of which has been satisfactory…
The idea that two distinct elements are combined in Mona Lisa’s smile is one that has struck several critics. They accordingly find in the beautiful Florentine’s expression the most perfect representation of the contrasts which dominate the erotic life of women; the contrast between reserve and seduction, and between the most devoted tenderness and a sensuality that is ruthlessly demanding - consuming men as if they were alien beings.”
[Freud then points to another source who characterized the Mona Lisa smile as having “daemonic magic”.]
“Muther (1909, 1, 314) writes: ‘What especially casts a spell on the spectator is the daemonic magic of this smile. Hundreds of poets and authors have written about this woman who now appears to smile on us so seductively, and now to stare coldly and without soul into space; and no one has solved the riddle of her smile, no one has read the meaning of her thoughts. Everything, even the landscape, is mysteriously dream-like, and seems to be trembling in a kind of sultry sensuality.’…”
[Later, Freud suggests that that the duality of the Mona Lisa smile evolves from Leonardo Da Vinci’s mother who acted to Leonardo as both tender caretaker and pedophilic menace.]
[p. 2288] “If Leonardo was successful in reproducing on Mona Lisa’s face the double meaning which this smile contained, the promise of unbounded tenderness and at the same time sinister menace (to quote Pater’s phrase), then here too he had remained true to the content of his earliest memory. For his mother’s tenderness was fateful for him; it determined his destiny and the privations that were in store for him. The violence of the caresses, to which his phantasy of the vulture points, was only too natural. In her love for her child the poor forsaken mother had to give vent to all her memories of the caresses she had enjoyed as well as her longing for new ones; and she was forced to do so not only to compensate herself for having no husband, but also to compensate her child for having no father to fondle him. So, like all unsatisfied mothers, she took her little son in place of her husband, and by the too early maturing of his erotism robbed him of a part of his masculinity…”
[Later in his writing, Freud concludes that Leonardo Da Vinci “Leonardo had prevailed over both dogmatic and personal religion, and had by his work of research removed himself far from the position from which the Christian believer surveys the world”.]
[p. 2295] It does not seem as if the instance of Leonardo could show this view of religious belief to be mistaken. Accusations charging him with unbelief or (what at that time came to the same thing) with apostasy from Christianity were brought against him while he was still alive, and are clearly described in the first biography which Vasari wrote of him, (Muntz, 1899, 292 ff.) In the second (1568) edition of his Vite Vasari omitted these observations. In view of the extraordinary sensitiveness of his age where religious matters were in question, we can understand perfectly why even in his notebooks Leonardo should have refrained from directly stating his attitude to Christianity. In his researches he did not allow himself to be led astray in the slightest degree by the account of the Creation in Holy Writ; he challenged, for example, the possibility of a universal Deluge, and in geology he calculated in terms of hundreds of thousands of years with no more hesitation than men in modern times.
Among his ‘prophecies’ there are some things that would have been bound to offend the sensitive feelings of a Christian believer. Take for example, ‘On the practice of praying to the images of saints’: ‘Men will speak to men that perceive nothing, that have their eyes open and see nothing; they will talk to them and receive no answer; they will implore the grace of those that have ears and hear not; they will kindle lights for one that is blind.’ (After Herzfeld, 1906, 292.)…
Or ‘On the Mourning on Good Friday’: ‘In every part of Europe great people will weep for the death of a single man who died in the East.’ (Ibid., 297.)
The view has been expressed about Leonardo’s art that he took from the sacred figures the last remnant of their connection with the Church and made them human, so as to represent by their means great and beautiful human emotions. Muther praises him for overcoming the prevailing mood of decadence and for restoring to man his right to sensuality and the joy of living. In the notes that show Leonardo engrossed in fathoming the great riddles of nature there is no lack of passages where he expresses his admiration for the Creator, the ultimate cause of all these noble secrets; but there is nothing which indicates that he wished to maintain any personal relation with this divine power. The reflections in which he has recorded the deep wisdom of his last years of life breathe the resignation of the human being who subjects himself to "the laws of nature, and who expects no alleviation from the goodness or grace of God. There is scarcely any doubt that Leonardo had prevailed over both dogmatic and personal religion, and had by his work of research removed himself far from the position from which the Christian believer surveys the world.”
A common source, and a common outcome: Brentano -the common denominator?
Isn’t remarkable how similar in nature are the analyses of Da Vinci by Freud and Dostoyevsky by Shestov are, respectively? Both assert that the logic and faith of both men are incompatible with one another and thus conclude that they must choose only one or the other. Freud is explicit in his conclusion that Leonardo Da Vinci was not a Christian believer while Shestov slyly ironically suggests that one must accept Dostoyevsky as disdaining logic in order to view his Christianity as authentic.
What an unfathomable coincidence. Except…
It turns out that Freud is linked to Husserl (the philosopher, you may recall, who introduced Shestov to Heidegger and to the works of Kierkegaard) through a common teacher, Franz Brentano. Both Freud and Husserl were deeply influenced by Bertano (as described at: https://aeon.co.essays/brentano-who-taught-freud-and-husserl-is-a-lesson-to-us-all ), ‘With charisma to spare: Franz Brentano, philosopher and psychologist, was an iconic teacher eclipsed by his students, Freud and Husserl among them’ by John A Goldsmith, pertinent excerpts below)
“…In 1862, Brentano defended a dissertation on Aristotle at the University of Tübingen, and then did seminary work in Munich and Würzburg, taking vows and joining the priesthood in August 1864, when he was 26…
In 1869, at the time of the First Vatican Council, Brentano was asked to write a statement regarding papal infallibility, and he emerged after a period of study and reflection with arguments against it, a conclusion that set him on a path that led to his leaving the priesthood. The next summer, the Church in Rome established the principle of papal infallibility that sanctified whatever the Pope said when he was speaking ex cathedra. For the nascent empiricist that was Brentano, this was a bridge too far. Uncertain of his faith in this shifting world, he left the priesthood and his post at Würzburg in April 1873, even though he’d been promoted to professor just the year before. Soon after, he was offered the chair in philosophy at the University of Vienna, a fabulous position for a young man. Brentano moved to Vienna in 1874, and in the years after he found many students who were eager to study with him, including Freud, Tomáš Masaryk (the future first president of Czechoslovakia) and the future philosopher Edmund Husserl…
Freud’s professional career didn’t engage with the kinds of psychology that Brentano was involved in, but he took five philosophy courses from Brentano during the years of his studies – the only courses outside of medicine that he took. He wrote to a friend, Eduard Silberstein:
(Freud’s writing) ‘One of the courses – lo and behold – just listen, you will be surprised – deals with the existence of God, and Professor Brentano, who lectures on it, is a marvelous person. Scientist and philosopher though he is, he deems it necessary to support with his expositions this airy existence of a divinity … This peculiar, and in many respects ideal man, a believer in God, a teleologist, a Darwinist and altogether a darned clever fellow, a genius in fact. For the moment I will say only this: that under Brentano’s influence I have decided to take my PhD in philosophy and zoology.’
Years later, in 1932, Freud recalled a translation from English that he’d done during his student days, and he explained that his name had been suggested as a translator by Brentano, ‘whose student I then was or had been at a still earlier time’….
The philosopher best remembered today among Brentano’s students is Husserl. His intention had been to be a mathematician, and in fact he earned a PhD in mathematics […], but it was Brentano’s lectures that captured his imagination. Husserl spoke with some emotion of how he saw Brentano when he listened to his lectures:
(Husserl) “In every feature, in every movement, in his soulful, introspective eyes, filled with determination, in his whole manner, was expressed the consciousness of a great mission.”
Is there a better description of charisma?...
Even after Brentano’s death, Husserl recalled the force of attraction to his former teacher, writing:
(Husserl): “In spite of all my prejudices, I could not resist the power of his personality for long. I was soon fascinated and then overcome by the unique clarity and dialectical acuity of his explanations.”
Brentano was, Husserl noted, convinced of the truth of his own philosophy:
(Husserl): ‘In fact, his self-confidence was complete. The inner certainty that he was moving in the right direction and was founding a purely scientific philosophy never wavered …’”
***
It may be surmised, in light of the presence of the future first president of Czechoslovakia (Tomáš Masaryk) among Brentano’s students, that very powerful and influential people were paying very close attention to the teachings of Franz Brentano in Vienna. Is it possible that these powerful individuals sought out students of Brentano in order to channel their own influence into the public square?
Let us suppose, for sake of argument, that these powerful and influential individuals (perhaps including Brentano but perhaps not) knew about the message conveyed in the Gospel of John, the 153 large fishes, and the decoded message in Da Vinci’s painting of The Last Supper. Let us further consider the possibility, reasonable given their status, that their worldview resembled the outlook of Niccolo Machiavelli and Cesare Borgia.
If these powerful individuals were simply to publish their own views, it would be clear that their motivation was self-serving. In short, such a manuscript would be easily perceived to be “equipment”, to use Heidegger’s terminology. Everyone would have recognized what they were really doing. However, if they could persuade their academic partners to publish the same views, perhaps by money or opportunities for career advancement, the very same manuscript would be interpreted instead as “artwork”.
Once published, this “artwork” could be praised and lauded by other “independent” literary critics as brilliant and insightful. Naturally, the “independent” literary critics could also be convinced by these powerful individuals, using the very same tools-money or opportunities for career advancement- to write the rave reviews. Under such circumstances, might not both Freud and Husserl (and eventually Heidegger and Shestov) have been offered opportunity to work with these influential people in some capacity? Likewise, works by the literary critics could be lauded and praised by still more critics using the same means, et cetera, et cetera. In other words, one method used by those powerful individuals who seek to destroy Christianity is to construct a multi-level pyramid of lies designed to bury the truth.
Doesn’t this scenario sound a bit like Oprah Winfrey’s praise of Eckhart Tolle’s book? Recall that his book was also praised effusively by celebrities (Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, Kidada Jones) and by other influential people? In turn, many media accounts at the time praised Oprah for staring her book club, suggesting it encouraging reading, a valuable intellectual activity. Were these celebrities given choice roles in the entertainment industry in exchange for their rendered “equipment”?
***
So what sorts of topics might the group in Vienna surrounding Franz Bertano have been developing?
Brentano himself published little, but one text called “The Teaching of Jesus and Its Enduring Meaning” was recently translated to English and reviewed and is available online [see: https://reviews.ophen.org/2022/25/frantz-brentano-the-teaching-of-jesus-and-its-enduring-significance/ ,Reviewed by: Elodie Boublil, Ph.D. (University of Paris XII; Alexander von Humboldt Fellow (2018-2020)]
“The Teaching of Jesus and its Enduring Significance brings together a set of texts written by Frantz Brentano at the end of his life and deals with the Christian doctrine of Revelation, the relationship between faith and reason, the teaching of Jesus reported in the Gospels, and the authority of the Church, as an institution, to define Catholic dogmas.
Brentano insists on the figurative language and parables of Jesus to distinguish faith from reason. He argues that parables are less precise than logical demonstration and, therefore, less prone to convince: “Faith exists in a disproportion between the evidence and the level of conviction. For faith exists, to a certain extent, midway between opinion and knowledge, sharing with the former the absence of secure grounds and sharing with the latter absolute conviction and the suspension of doubt. One has often run up against this, but the Church has continually reaffirmed this paradoxical, logically and morally dubious anomaly (The Teaching of Jesus, p. 39). Such a rationalist definition immediately rules out the supernatural dimension of faith, which would find its roots in grace, and reduces it to a form of unfounded certainty.”…
In a third chapter, Brentano examines Blaise Pascal’s ideas and his apologetics of the Christian faith. However, as the volume editor explains, “his terse manner of formulating Pascal’s view is too much geared towards setting up his criticisms to be taken as a comprehensive introduction to, or interpretation of, Pascal’s text.”… Brentano criticizes Pascal for not tolerating theological and philosophical criticism and for not subjecting Christian dogmas to rationalist scrutiny: “instead of attempting to bring these doctrines into harmony with reason, Pascal hurls the crassest insults against the presumption of a reason that seeks to evaluate whether real contradictions exist (The Teaching of Jesus, p. 58).” Brentano puts forward scientific arguments to refute creationism and reproaches Pascal for not questioning dogmatic theology’s ontological foundations…
Brentano’s summary of Christian doctrine is based on the “God of the philosophers,” the “architect” of Malebranche and Leibniz, and not on the God of Christian Revelation defined by dogmatic theology. Consequently, Brentano’s demonstration reveals more of his philosophical option – a kind of philosophical supersessionism – than it constitutes a viable refutation elaborated from within. From a methodological point of view, Brentano relies on deist dogmatism to refute the Christian dogma of the Trinity. Brentano’s text is instead a counter-apologetic in favor of an alternative definition of God that would make it possible to dispense with dogmas and the Roman Catholic Church, rather than an honest discussion – in the sense of a medieval disputatio – of the arguments given by the Fathers of the Church, moreover rarely cited, on the respective roles of faith and reason in these metaphysical endeavors.
Consequently, Brentano’s text is less a systematic and consistent refutation than a polemical attempt to put down the Christian doctrine. In this sense, it bears historical significance as it reveals the bellicose spirit of the late 19th century. It deserves attention to better understand the sources of division and quarrels between philosophers and theologians around the turn of the 20th century…
Ultimately, Brentano’s text points to the methodological differences between philosophy and theology. Acknowledging their discrepancies does not mean ruling out one another but encouraging an honest and respectful dialogue. The translation of this volume is timely in that it draws attention to the necessity to think anew about the way we conceive of faith and reason in a disoriented world where, paradoxically, blind scientific positivism confronts new forms of obscurantism and plot theories – two opposite yet similar ways to disfigure the human mind, her reason as well as her heart…”
***
Let us entertain the possibility that the powerful individuals involved with Brentano wished to eliminate Christianity. Furthermore, let us suppose that these power brokers surmised the enormous impact that comprehension of the true message of the Gospel of John and the unbroken net with 153 fishes might do to invigorate the passions of the Christian faith among people all around the world.
Would any strategy be better than claiming that Dostoyevsky was an atheist and that only the Underground Man reveals the true measure of his faith? What missive would be superior to claiming that, rather than being the product of God’s love through Christ, the Mona Lisa smile resulted from the pedophilia of Leonardo da Vinci’s mother transferred to homoerotic pedophilia by Leonardo himself?
Is it then reasonable to imagine that Freud and Shestov might serve as originators of “equipment” rather than literary “artwork”- what Heidegger might call “truth”?
Is the puzzle of Nietzsche’s poetry solved by Jerusalem or by Athens?
Let us now briefly turn our attention to the Nietzsche by consulting the lecture by Professor Sugrue:
“Nietzsche is certainly the greatest and most important of the ‘theological thinkers’ of the last century. When he abolishes religion and truncates philosophy, then art, and the artist, achieves consummate importance. Now, it is funny. For someone with such great emphasis on aesthetics and who is arguably the greatest prose-poet of the German language, that Nietzsche – and it’s somehow ironic, maybe God is standing in the wings laughing at Nietzsche, forcing him to do these things- but Nietzsche has absolutely no capacity to criticize his own poetry. At the beginning (as an introduction) and at the end (as an appendix) in The Gay Science (published in 1882), there is a prelude in rhymes and an appendix in songs. And it is absolutely the worst doggerel ever written in the German language. It is so hilariously bad that it is hard to understand how Nietzsche could possibly allow this to be the introduction to what is arguably the greatest prose-poetry in German, perhaps even in any language…
(Yet Nietzsche) has no capacity to write German poetry, and one gets the sense of a sort of frustrated invalid trying to act heroic, rather than a truly heroic individual. In fact, he’s not a hero in his actual life. He died as an invalid. He died of syphilis actually, and he died insane in a sanitarium.”
Is it possible that what Professor Sugrue attributes this paradox of Nietzsche to a faith-based argument (God laughing in the wings, making Nietzsche write doggerel) might instead be due to a logical process. If Nietzsche agreed to serve as “equipment”, allowing the prose-poetry to be falsely attributed to him, and then added his own inferior “artwork” to the beginning and to the end of The Gay Science, the paradoxical outcome would be succinctly explained.
It is intriguing to imagine that Nietzsche “Great Man Theory” might be a twisted and malicious usurpation of Mark 10:43 “…whoever wished to become great among you shall become your servant.” Did this idea truly come to Nietzsche without the aid of those who, envisioning themselves as ‘great men’, possessed the motive and means to see this theory publicized, praised, and (so they hope) eventually adapted into practice?
One might counter that this is pure speculation on my part. To this point, let me pose a question: Suppose Nietzsche were offered substantial money and the potential for fame and recognition- which he likely would perceive as a better life in this world- by taking credit for well-crafted material created by others. What moral compass would compel Nietzsche to reject such an offer?
Consider one of Nietzsche’s quotes (from https://philosophybreak.com/articles/nietzsche-quotes-97-of-his-cleverest-statements/ ) uses the usual tactic to sever Athens from Jerusalem.
“Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature — is sin!”
I do not wish to be accused of adhering to Freudian philosophy, which I will summarize as “making stuff up”. Therefore, I admit there is a chance that Nietzsche is wrong in his ideas, yet authentic in his writings. Indeed, if we heed Lev Shestov then we must admit that “all things are possible”.
Nonetheless, my estimation is that Friedrich Nietzsche has far more in common with Milli Vanilli than with Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Reflect on Nietzsche’s message, his stated lack of conscience, and his inability to comprehend the abysmal quality of his poetry in an otherwise dazzling manuscript of prose-poetry. Consider also both the treacherous goals and the vast resources of those who wish to destroy Christianity by pressing the “Doubting Thomas” narrative. A more thoughtful synopsis might be “Girl, you know it’s true.”
Regardless of whether Nietzsche is inauthentic or simply wrong, one thing is clear: The Age of Nietzsche has ended. And it shall not rise again.
Lessons of history apply to the present: Do great men come in threes?
If a debate over philosophers who died nearly a century or more ago seems irrelevant in present times, consider the example of the American Civil Rights Leader and Christian (Baptist) minister, Reverend (Dr.) Martin Luther King, Jr. As recently as 2019, Dr. King was disparaged as advocating rape and participating in orgies as described by Pulitzer-Prize-winning author, David Garrow in “The troubling legacy of Martin Luther King: Newly-revealed FBI documents portray the great civil rights leader s a sexual libertine who ‘laughed’ as a forcible rape took place”. (from https://www.davidgarrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/DJGStandpoint2019.pdf )
“(FBI special agent) Welch had ascertained that King and his party would be staying at the historic Willard Hotel, on Pennsylvania Avenue just east of the White House, and Welch introduced Bergeron to a Willard manager who arranged for Bergeron to ‘survey’ the rooms in question. Bergeron then ‘placed a transmitter in each of two lamps and then through the hotel contact, it was arranged to have the housekeeper change the lamps in two rooms which had been set aside for King and his party’. In two other nearby rooms Bergeron and fellow Special Agent William D. Campbell set up “radio receivers and tape recorders” prior to when King and his friends first checked in on January 5. Staying in one of the two targeted rooms was King’s friend Logan Kearse, the pastor of Baltimore’s Cornerstone Baptist Church and, like King, the holder of a PhD from the Boston University School of Theology. Kearse “had brought to Washington several women ‘parishioners’ of his church”, a newly-released summary document from Sullivan’s personal file on King relates, and Kearse invited King and his friends to come and meet the women. ‘The group met in his room and discussed which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural or unnatural sex acts. When one of the women protested that she did not approve of this, the Baptist minister immediately and forcibly raped her,’ the typed summary states, parenthetically citing a specific FBI document (100-3-116-762) as its source.
“King looked on, laughed and offered advice,” Sullivan or one of his deputies then added in handwriting…
A later excerpt tells of an agent reporting allegations of shocking sexual liaisons by Martin Luther King, Jr. (who was married to Coretta Scott King).
“Agent William H. Been had heard rumours that King had patronised a local prostitute and decided that given King’s “position as a God-fearing man of the cloth . . . perhaps a casual inquiry made to the prostitute in question might shed an interesting side light to King’s extra-curricular activities”. At 3 a.m. on May 16 Been met Gail LaRue, a married 28-year-old who had left four children from a prior marriage in Sheridan, Wyoming. Gail explained that at 2 a.m. on April 27 (1964), a hotel bellman had asked her to go to the New Frontier Hotel and see the well-known black gospel musician Clara Ward, whose Clara Ward Singers were performing there. In the lobby, Ward handed Gail $100 and told her: ‘I have a couple of friends in town that would like to meet you and have you take care of them.’ Ward said ‘she was paying Gail . . . because these two men did not believe in paying a girl for her service and for Gail to keep quiet about receiving any money.” Clara took Gail to the bar at the Sands Hotel and made a call on the house phone. Martin Luther King then appeared in the bar and took both women to his room, where all three began drinking. King phoned one of his colleagues and told him to ‘get your damned ass down here because I have a beautiful white broad here’. Then ‘both the Rev King and Clara Ward stripped naked and told Gail to do the same.’ With Gail seated in a chair, ‘King went down on his knees and started nibbling on her right breast, while Clara Ward did the same with her left breast. Gail then stated, ‘I guess the Reverend got tired of that and put his head down between my legs and started nibbling on “that”.’ After a while he got up and told Clara Ward to try some of it, so Clara went down on Gail for a while. Gail stated, ‘I think Clara Ward is queer’.” Then King had intercourse with Gail while Clara watched.
“After what Gail stated seemed like hours, King rolled off and had another drink, then climbed back on for a second go around.” After King paused again, his friend showed up, had a drink, and had intercourse with Gail “while both Clara Ward and the Rev King watched the action from a close-by position”, with Clara sometimes stroking Gail as well. “Gail then stated that she was getting scared as they were pretty drunk and all using filthy language and at last she told Clara Ward she would have to go.” Clara informed King, who “then whispered in Gail’s ear, ‘I would like to try you sometime again if I could get you away from Clara’.”
Been wrote that “Gail stated to this investigator that ‘that was the worst orgy I’ve ever gone through’,” and added that she had declined a subsequent request from Clara Ward to get together again. Been’s three-page memo made its way to the FBI’s Las Vegas SAC, who had it retyped and labelled “Secret” for direct transmission to J. Edgar Hoover.”
The article fully credits Martin Luther King, Jr. as the leader of the intellectual and social aspects of the Civil Rights movement in the United States. But through the allegations of nefarious activities, the story attempts to strip away Christian morality faith from the reputation of Reverend King. Does this appear to be yet another attempt to eliminate Christianity from what the Gospel of Mark describes as a “great man”? Does this share substantial commonality with the attempts to do precisely the same to fellow great men, Leonardo da Vinci and Fyodor Dostoyevsky?
Could it be that the FBI tricked David Garrow into producing a narrative designed to sever Martin Luther King Jr.’s intellectual achievements from his Christian faith? Or did the FBI coordinate closely with David Garrow to craft the narrative? Or could it be that David Garrow speaks from his own nature? (see https://web.archive.org/web/20240616041345/https://www.davidgarrow.com/davidgarrow-com/biography/ )
“From 2011 until 2017, David Garrow was Professor of Law & History and Distinguished Faculty Scholar at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Prior to moving to Pittsburgh, Garrow was Senior Research Fellow at Homerton College, University of Cambridge… His previous book, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Morrow, 1986; HarperCollins paperback, 2004), won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize in Biography and the seventh annual Robert F. Kennedy Book Award.”
David Garrow concludes in the 2019 article:
“King’s far-from monogamous lifestyle, like his binge-drinking, may fit albeit uncomfortably within his existing life story, but the suggestion—actually more than one—that he either actively tolerated or personally employed violence against any woman, even while drunk, poses so fundamental a challenge to his historical stature as to require the most complete and extensive historical review possible.”
Perhaps the extensive historical review should be of the FBI and of David Garrow himself.
***
Incidentally, the last name of Agent “Been” is rather unusual. The word ‘been’ is most often used as the past participle of the verb “to be”, as in “has been”. When hyphenated, ‘has-been’ is a noun with informal usage meaning, “a person or thing which was formerly popular of effective but is no longer so; a dismissive term.” Consider the following (from
https://www.fbi.gov/history/wall-of-honor/william-h-christian-jr )
“On May 29, 1995, Special Agent William H. Christian, Jr., was shot and killed by Ralph McLean, who was being sought in connection with several police shootings and killings in the District of Columbia and Prince George's County, Maryland. McLean was expected to meet a former girlfriend in Greenbelt; and Special Agent Christian, along with 26 other investigators, was conducting a surveillance of the area. At approximately 1:00 a.m., McLean approached Special Agent Christian, who was sitting in his car in a parking lot. Attacking the agent from behind, McLean shot him through the car window. FBI agents and local police pursued McLean to a parking garage, where he killed himself with a gunshot to the head. Special Agent Christian was born in July 1946 in Baltimore, Maryland. He entered on duty with the FBI through the Baltimore field office in 1975 and was later assigned to Detroit, where he became certified as a SWAT team member. Special Agent Christian was ultimately assigned to the field office in Washington, D.C.”
I cannot help but wonder whether the name “William H. Been” might portend a deeper meaning than that implied by the story by David Garrow. Could it be that the name of the FBI agent is fabricated and that the middle initial of “William H. Been” refers to “Has-”, as in, “William Has-Been”? It seems to me that certain powerful individuals might wish to imply that Christianity is “formerly popular and effective but is no longer so”. I wonder if Martin Heidgger might agree. According to work attributed to Nietzsche, the platform of ‘artwork’ not be limited to canvas or stage or paper.
We might be well-served to ponder the depths of evil brought into being through “equipment” rendered by an “existential threat”.
The Way Out of the rabbit hole: seek truth, seek repentance
Let me conclude by suggesting that, for those who have been led astray, it is not too late. There is a way out of this holzweg, this rabbit hole. Ask yourself three questions.
What do you seek?
Whom do you seek?
Seeker, what’s your life like?
I got though a lot but not all. The points are over head tbh and I have not read the da Vinci code. Firstly, I don’t agree there will be a reckoning of MLK evil deeds. He is untouchable and the FBi surveillance results have been known for years. Just like Mike Tyson, rape and other crimes don’t matter to the protected. Secondly I like eckhart tolle I don’t think he anti christ. He quotes from the bible a bit and others where it is a good story, same as Buddhist monks do, they just state the parallels to their beliefs. But I didn’t get his relevance and if you were suggesting he a charlatan due to Oprah and propped up sale 🤷♂️.