Locke's double mind

As for John Locke as a biblical scholar overall... that is complicated. He got the first chapter right, so he's off to a decent start.

For the Ehrmanists amongst us Locke interprets accurately the concept of "Christ", that Jesus proclaimed to be temporal king, which Catholicism has obscured. A direct line connects Locke and Michael Hudson. Although, Locke, the propertarian Whig, cannot follow Hudson's ultra-Tory stance toward debt as asset. It may or may not have occurred to Locke; for my part, I give Locke more credit as a thinker than as an honest man.

On topic of honesty, I don't yet see where Hahn-Wiker bring up Locke's notoriously wrong Blank Slate theory on the brain. I do see where Locke betrays contempt for the common yokel, to whom priests and Parliament must lie, to keep the peace. Locke, I think, did not believe in the Blank Slate himself. Hahn and Wiker, I am more sure, pretend for the sake of rhetoric that we are all born equal.

INTERJECTION 5/23/21: Locke is also wrong on the nation-state; but over the late AD 1600s the Church fell down on this too - so compromising Hahn and Wiker.

Where Locke goes eisegetical, as the dynamic duo gleefully reports, is on the Eucharist, that first Catholic reinterpretation of Christ's ministry (and failure). Locke is not yet bold enough to write The Saecular Gospel, so must play Lutheran games with the text's meaning.