I think the brutality must have been intentional. To the Romans, a "good death" was quick and painless. For example, if you were a citizen of Rome, then even if you were sentenced to death, you were guaranteed a beheading instead of something slower. To the Greeks, keeping the body intact was very important. That's why they gave Socrates hemlock to drink; even though it must have been agonizing, it was respectful because it maintained the integrity of his body. Jesus' death mixed the worst kind of death to both Greeks and Romans, and also fit in the curse that the Jews had against anyone who died hanging on a tree. This offensiveness is called out explicitly in 1 Corinthians 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1...

I think you have it backwards. The 'brutal cruelty and outright ridiculousness' of blood sacrifice is the whole point of Christianity. I realise Judaism has changed a lot, but in Jesus' time it was an unforgiving system. The death of Jesus was supposed to supplant all other kinds of sacrifice, and bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more - you simply had to ask for forgiveness. When you discuss OT scriptures you aren't talking about Christianity.

> bring in a new system whereby you didn't need to atone for sins any more

I believe the Biblical narrative describing the significance of Jesus' sacrifice was about past sins, that which humans bore without actually committing. I do not believe the death of Jesus in any way suggests, in Christian folklore, that you don't need to atone for sins.

FWIW, I think the Catholic Church (which didn't exist until hundreds of years after the whole Jesus thing) considers things like rosary prayers as atonement.

My understanding is that Jesus' sacrifice was for all sins, past and future.

The three verses cited on blood atonement are from the NT.

I realize the idea is that the blood of Jesus was supposed to end blood atonement and usher in a new era. However, I never thought this idea was reasonable, never identified with a God who would set such a system up, and never felt that this idea at the core of a religion would ultimately lead to positive outcomes or really much more than continued barbarism and cruelty, but I'm not going to argue with your faith.

I just think Jesus was more or less successfully trying to fix all of the problems he saw with the religion he was born into. The OT God is quite evil (or at least does/allows/commands evil things). A God who doesn't require sacrifice, forgives sins as they are confessed and eschews violence is quite a step up.

Given what he had to work with I think he did pretty well.