Back to Cosmos index


And then - the Pharisees,
struggling to maintain
the people's faith
under the Roman jackboot. John
McQuarrie calls them
formalistic, 'in-
authentic' even, using
the Heideggerian term, but how
does he know? Were Jesus
and the disciples impartial
commentators? Maybe this
of course was a work
of the Holy Spirit, but
was the coming of a new age really
built on a critique applicable
equally to every
clerisy everywhere?
Inauthenticity being our
everyday (as opposed to our
hyper-essential) bread.
Who is it who could rise
up to what Heidegger or John
McQuarrie could recognise
as authentic being? Maybe
the saints - and maybe that is why
Sartre recognised
Genet as a saint. Oh no,
the new religion has to be
a new inauthenticity, a new
railway line for you and me
to travel on, and so
don't be too hard on the Pharisees.
They had their role to play
in the Spirit's scenario,
condemned to be the symbol of
misdirected love.