The Evolution Of God Part 5

Philo was born into a rich and influential family. Maintaining this status meant, first of all, staying on good terms with the powers that were-Roman politicians and upper-cla.s.s Greeks. For rich and powerful people to stay on good terms with other rich and powerful people isn't an intrinsically delicate task, but Philo's Jewishness complicated things. The Jews' monotheism was an occasional irritant to local polytheists, especially at times when Roman leaders, deeming themselves divine, demanded worship. 16 16 This is a demand that devout Jews were compelled to resist, and their resistance gave fuel to anti-Semitism among Greeks and Egyptians. This is a demand that devout Jews were compelled to resist, and their resistance gave fuel to anti-Semitism among Greeks and Egyptians.

Of course, you could always renounce your Judaism. (Philo's nephew would choose this tack and rise to great power, becoming governor of Egypt.) 17 17 But Philo was very religious, so he had to reconcile his various worlds. He had to preserve the viability of his Jewish world -and the integrity of his Jewish faith-even amid the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian worlds. But Philo was very religious, so he had to reconcile his various worlds. He had to preserve the viability of his Jewish world -and the integrity of his Jewish faith-even amid the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian worlds.

This was not a task for the faint of heart. Imagine trying to explain to the emperor Caligula, who considered himself divine, why you would prefer that statues of him not adorn Alexandrian synagogues, let alone the Jerusalem temple. Philo tried. Alexandrian mobs had rioted against the Jews, burning some to death, after Jews refused to see their synagogues thus corrupted. Philo led a delegation to Rome to plead the Jews' case, lest official sanction of this persecution sustain it.

Philo's account of his attempt to morally enlighten a famously narcissistic man is darkly entertaining. When Caligula asks why Jews refuse to eat pork, Philo says, "Different people have different customs and the use of some things is forbidden to us as others are to our opponents." A Philo sympathizer, trying to put the point in Caligula's frame of reference, chimes in, "Yes, just as many don't eat lamb which is so easily obtainable." Caligula replies, "Quite right too, for it's not nice." 18 18 So much for the lamb angle. So much for the lamb angle.

Still, in the end Philo's delegation was successful-at least, successful enough for the Jews of Alexandria to hang on to their lives and their religion. Caligula declared in Philo's presence that, though the Jews are "foolish in refusing to believe that I have got the nature of a G.o.d," they are, at bottom, "unfortunate rather than wicked." 19 19 Caligula's sanity has been much debated, but for the moment, at least, he was being rational. This grudging tolerance made sense. Whatever the theological differences between Caligula and the Jews, his relationship with them was, at bottom, non-zero-sum. They were a productive people, and they paid their taxes. Letting Alexandrians kill them all would thus have been a net economic loss, and, moreover, a disruption of social order that could prove contagious, inciting Jews and/or their enemies elsewhere in the empire. And from Philo's perspective, certainly, violence was a losing proposition. "Live and let live" was logical from both points of view, and logic-in this case, at least-won out.

The encounter with Caligula was the climax of Philo's known political career, but its non-zero-sum social backdrop had long been the context of Philo's life. The Jews' situation in Alexandria was precarious, and being allowed to practice monotheism was an achievement in itself. If they overplayed their hand and were seen as aggressively intolerant, their status would change from tolerated minority to loathed enemy. This image problem was plainly on Philo's mind when he rendered his interpretation of Exodus 22:28. In light of the tolerance expressed in this verse, he asked, how could people claim that Judaism was intent on "breaking down the customs of others"? 20 20 Indeed, Philo comes about as close to expressing the non-zero-sum logic behind his doctrine of tolerance as you could expect from someone who lived nearly two millennia before the invention of game theory. Intolerance, he saw, would breed intolerance, and the result could be lose-lose. However false pagan G.o.ds may be, those who believe in them "are not peaceful toward or reconciled with those who do not gladly accept their opinion. And this is the beginning and origin of wars." And, after all, "to us the Law [the Torah] has described the source of peace as a beautiful possession." 21 21 Peace, Brotherhood, and Power.

To see Philo's tolerance as non-zero-sum logic incarnate, you have to see non-zero-sum logic in its true and unglamorous form. Because non-zero-sumgames, unlike zero-sumgames, canhave "win-win" outcomes, people sometimes think of them as orgies of amiability. They can be, but they usually aren't. Almost always, within a non-zero-sum game, there is a dimension of zero-sumness-a conflict of interest. When you buy a new car, there is a range of prices that make the purchase worthwhile from your point of view (say, anything under $28,000) and a range of prices that make the sale profitable for the dealer (say, anything over $27,000). Since there is overlap of those ranges-the possibility of an outcome that improves the fortunes of both players -the game is non-zero-sum. But there is still a conflict of interest, because the closer the price is to $27,000 the better for you, and the closer it is to $28,000 the better for the dealer. Movement along the spectrum between $27,000 and $28,000 is entirely zero-sum, because it lowers the fortunes of one player exactly as it raises the fortunes of the other player. Hence bargaining, which can sometimes lead to deception, suspicion, buyer's remorse, and so on. The bargaining can also lead to the deal's falling through-a lose-lose outcome, since each player has missed out on the gain that a deal would have brought.

Philo and Caligula had a higher-stakes conflict of interest than a car buyer and a car dealer. Caligula wanted to be worshipped widely, and pockets of resistance were thus dangerous: What if pagans started emulating this Jewish stubbornness? 22 22 Philo, for his part, would have liked to see the end of Caligula; other emperors had been more tolerant of Jews. But, though both Caligula and the Jews might have wished the other didn't exist, trying to bring that wish to fruition had a prohibitive downside; the outcome would probably be lose-lose. Philo, for his part, would have liked to see the end of Caligula; other emperors had been more tolerant of Jews. But, though both Caligula and the Jews might have wished the other didn't exist, trying to bring that wish to fruition had a prohibitive downside; the outcome would probably be lose-lose.

This by itself-the possibility of a lose-lose outcome-makes a game non-zero-sum. After all, an outcome that's negative for both parties doesn't add up to zero; there is a correlation of fortunes between the players, even if it's for the worse. Besides, avoiding a double loss is, in relative terms at least, a kind of double win. The decades-long nuclear standoff during the Cold War was thus nonzero-sum-not because each year of successfully avoided nuclear war brought mutual, tangible gain, but because, if the game had been played differently, it could have brought mutual, tangible loss. And here, too, the non-zero-sum dynamic brought a kind of tolerance; though East and West considered each other more or less evil, neither tried to wipe out the other.

Similarly, Philo's doctrine of tolerance didn't mean that he liked pagan G.o.ds or believed in them or even that he liked pagans. There was at least one pagan-Caligula-that he loathed, and for that matter he didn't have especially high regard for Egyptians. (In a pa.s.sage that, though ambiguous, seems to apply to Egyptians broadly, he calls them "a seed bed of evil in whose souls both the venom and the temper of the native crocodiles and asps were reproduced.") 23 23 Still, Philo saw the folly of initiating a nuclear exchange; hence his doctrine of tolerance. Still, Philo saw the folly of initiating a nuclear exchange; hence his doctrine of tolerance.

Had power been dramatically redistributed-had a Jewish rebellion against one of the more anti-Semitic Roman emperors suddenly seemed feasible-Philo might have toned down the talk about tolerance and peace. In what may have been a veiled reference to Roman rule he wrote, "Now when occasion offers it is a good thing to oppose our enemies and to destroy their power of attack, but lacking such opportunity it is safe to keep quiet, while if one wishes to get any benefit from them it is advantageous to propitiate them." 24 24 Philo here ill.u.s.trates an important point. The "law of religious tolerance," as laid out in chapter 6, is incomplete. It said that people are more open to foreign G.o.ds when they see themselves playing a non-zero-sum game with foreigners-see their fortunes as positively correlated with the foreigners' fortunes. Strictly speaking, the case for tolerating other people's G.o.ds doesn't always always depend on the logic being non-zero-sum. Suppose that a Jewish uprising could have been easily overcome by Roman authorities, and that they would have benefited somehow from thus subduing the Jews, so the result would have been literally win-lose. It still would have made sense for Philo to avoid stirring up trouble, since he would be on the losing side. The amended version of the law of religious tolerance, then, is that tolerance is more likely when you see yourself as losing from intolerance, regardless of whether the dynamic seems zero-sum or non-zero-sum; but when the dynamic is seen as non-zero-sum-when both sides see themselves as losing-then depend on the logic being non-zero-sum. Suppose that a Jewish uprising could have been easily overcome by Roman authorities, and that they would have benefited somehow from thus subduing the Jews, so the result would have been literally win-lose. It still would have made sense for Philo to avoid stirring up trouble, since he would be on the losing side. The amended version of the law of religious tolerance, then, is that tolerance is more likely when you see yourself as losing from intolerance, regardless of whether the dynamic seems zero-sum or non-zero-sum; but when the dynamic is seen as non-zero-sum-when both sides see themselves as losing-then mutual mutual tolerance makes sense. tolerance makes sense.

So, back to the original question: Why did Philo advocate tolerance, whereas Jews in Israel two centuries earlier had smashed pagan idols? Maybe just because Jews in Israel two centuries earlier thought they could get away with it. And they were right; they rebelled successfully against their imperial rulers. For all we know, Philo, put in their position, would have done the same thing.

This may sound depressing. It seems to take the "enlightenment" out of "moral enlightenment," turning "tolerance" into a tactical ploy.

But depression isn't necessarily warranted. For one thing, tactical wisdom and moral enlightenment aren't mutually exclusive. What starts as a tactical ploy, as grudging coexistence, can for various reasons evolve into a truer, more philosophical appreciation of tolerance-an appreciation, even, of the beauty of diverse belief. Having a pragmatic, selfish reason to coexist with people can be (even if it sometimes isn't) the first step toward thinking about them in a nonselfish way. And once you start down that path, there's no necessary limit. People have been known to develop-and articulate a whole philosophy of-heartfelt warmth toward humanity as a whole. 25 25 Game Theory and the Bible.

The non-zero-sum logic that makes tolerance tactically wise, and can sometimes lead to a morally richer tolerance, is actually a pretty common feature of life. Human existence abounds in self-serving reasons to start thinking less selfishly, and such logic crops up repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible. One way to spot it is to look for cases in which Israelites affirm the validity of a foreign G.o.d. In the book of Judges, Israel has suffered a military setback at the hands of the Ammonites and would just as soon avoid further conflict. Its military leader, Jephthah, asks the Ammonite king, "Should you not possess what your G.o.d Chemosh gives you to possess? And should we not be the ones to possess everything that our G.o.d Yahweh has conquered for our benefit?" 26 26 When peaceful coexistence is in your interest, foreign G.o.ds deserve respect. When peaceful coexistence is in your interest, foreign G.o.ds deserve respect.

At least, they deserve your expressed expressed respect. In referring to the land that "your G.o.d Chemosh gives you to possess," Jephthah is tactfully refraining from making an a.s.sertion made elsewhere in the Bible: that, actually, it was Yahweh, not Chemosh, who had given the Ammonites their land. Notably, this a.s.sertion, like Jephthah's burst of interfaith tolerance, comes by way of justifying a policy of peaceful coexistence. Yahweh is advising the Israelites against stirring up trouble with the Ammonites: "Do not hara.s.s them or engage them in battle, for I will not give the land of the Ammonites to you as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot." And Lot, as a nephew of Abraham's, was family. respect. In referring to the land that "your G.o.d Chemosh gives you to possess," Jephthah is tactfully refraining from making an a.s.sertion made elsewhere in the Bible: that, actually, it was Yahweh, not Chemosh, who had given the Ammonites their land. Notably, this a.s.sertion, like Jephthah's burst of interfaith tolerance, comes by way of justifying a policy of peaceful coexistence. Yahweh is advising the Israelites against stirring up trouble with the Ammonites: "Do not hara.s.s them or engage them in battle, for I will not give the land of the Ammonites to you as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot." And Lot, as a nephew of Abraham's, was family. 27 27 Thus a single piece of game theoretical logic-in this case the logic of peaceful coexistence between Israel and Ammon - can have different theological manifestations, depending on the rhetorical context. When the audience is Ammonite, the upshot is respect for an Ammonite G.o.d. When the audience is Israelite, the upshot is an expanded compa.s.s of Yahweh's concern, a bit of progress toward moral universalism; the Ammonites are in a sense Yahweh's people, too, the Israelites are told. Either way, whether the drift is toward interfaith tolerance or toward universalism, there is a kind of moral progress.

The judicious extension of Yahweh's concern to the Ammonites ill.u.s.trates why, as I argued in the previous chapter, the moral character of the one true G.o.d at the moment of his birth doesn't much matter in the long run. Even though one driving force behind monotheism's emergence seems to have been hostility, the G.o.d that emerged needn't remain remain hostile toward Israel's neighbors. Even if the "universalism" so often attributed to the G.o.d of the exile is partly a euphemism for far-flung retribution, this G.o.d was capable of maturing, of moving toward hostile toward Israel's neighbors. Even if the "universalism" so often attributed to the G.o.d of the exile is partly a euphemism for far-flung retribution, this G.o.d was capable of maturing, of moving toward moral moral universalism, toward universal compa.s.sion. True, the presumably exilic writings of Ezekiel have G.o.d vowing that "Ammon shall be remembered no more among the nations." universalism, toward universal compa.s.sion. True, the presumably exilic writings of Ezekiel have G.o.d vowing that "Ammon shall be remembered no more among the nations." 28 28 But G.o.d had felt more warmly toward Ammon in the past and could feel that way again in the future. But G.o.d had felt more warmly toward Ammon in the past and could feel that way again in the future. 29 29 What's more, even if there is backsliding, every burst of moral growth G.o.d exhibits, once etched in scripture, can be revived later, even amplified, when circ.u.mstances are propitious. The Hebrew Bible repeatedly demands decent treatment for foreigners who migrate to Israel, and in one case goes so far as to say, "you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." 30 30 Philo, living in a multiethnic environment and wanting both to advertise Jewish tolerance and to welcome any willing converts to Judaism, made this verse the basis for a brief rhapsody: G.o.d wants "all members of the nation to love the incomers, not only as friends and kinsfolk but as themselves both in body and soul: in bodily matters, by acting as far as may be for their common interest; in mental by having the same griefs and joys, so that they may seem to be the separate parts of a single living being which is compacted and unified by their fellowship in it." Philo, living in a multiethnic environment and wanting both to advertise Jewish tolerance and to welcome any willing converts to Judaism, made this verse the basis for a brief rhapsody: G.o.d wants "all members of the nation to love the incomers, not only as friends and kinsfolk but as themselves both in body and soul: in bodily matters, by acting as far as may be for their common interest; in mental by having the same griefs and joys, so that they may seem to be the separate parts of a single living being which is compacted and unified by their fellowship in it." 31 31 Ruth and Jonah.

The Yahweh of scripture shows repeated bursts of moral growth. The book of Ruth, near the end of the Hebrew Bible, offers up a remarkable revelation: King David had not been ethnically pure. 32 32 His great-grandmother Ruth was not only a foreigner, but a foreigner whose native country had given Israel much trouble over the centuries: Moab. One interpretation of David's multiethnic past-that G.o.d's love goes beyond ethnic bounds, and is available to all who worship him-is underscored by the details of Ruth's story. "Ruth the Moabite," as she is called, is accepted in Israel after declaring her allegiance to Yahweh and proving her goodness through hard work and kindness. One Israelite man, upon meeting her and learning her history, declares, "May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have full reward from the Lord, the G.o.d of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!" His great-grandmother Ruth was not only a foreigner, but a foreigner whose native country had given Israel much trouble over the centuries: Moab. One interpretation of David's multiethnic past-that G.o.d's love goes beyond ethnic bounds, and is available to all who worship him-is underscored by the details of Ruth's story. "Ruth the Moabite," as she is called, is accepted in Israel after declaring her allegiance to Yahweh and proving her goodness through hard work and kindness. One Israelite man, upon meeting her and learning her history, declares, "May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have full reward from the Lord, the G.o.d of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!" 33 33 Then, facilitating this process, he marries her. Then, facilitating this process, he marries her.

How to explain the inclusive spirit of the book of Ruth? Theories differ. Some scholars think it was written after the exile and that its backdrop is interethnic marriage. 34 34 When the Babylonian exiles returned to Israel, they found much intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, and arguments about its propriety erupted. In Jewish doctrine, the anti-intermarriage forces eventually prevailed, but the book of Ruth, these scholars argue, is a literary legacy of the promarriage forces; if David himself descended from a mixed marriage, the author of Ruth was saying, then surely intermarriage can't be a sin! When the Babylonian exiles returned to Israel, they found much intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, and arguments about its propriety erupted. In Jewish doctrine, the anti-intermarriage forces eventually prevailed, but the book of Ruth, these scholars argue, is a literary legacy of the promarriage forces; if David himself descended from a mixed marriage, the author of Ruth was saying, then surely intermarriage can't be a sin!

Other scholars give the book of Ruth an earlier origin, perhaps even going back to the time of David and Solomon. According to the Bible, Israel was then employing many foreigners as workers on royal projects and mercenaries in the army. Maybe, the argument goes, the book's theme of interethnic tolerance was meant to validate foreign intercourse of an economic sort. 35 35 Note what these two theories share: non-zero-sum logic. When foreigners agree to work for Israel's elites, elites and foreigners alike see gain in the relationship. When foreigners and Israelites get married, bride and groom alike plan to gain from the relationship. In both scenarios, stories emphasizing interethnic amity-like the book of Ruth-could lubricate the non-zero-sum game in question. And in both cases Israelites benefiting from the game might encourage the telling of such stories.

The point isn't that one of these two theories is necessarily correct. The point is just that they make sense, and that theories that make sense will tend to resemble them. If you want to explain the promulgation of themes of interethnic amity and tolerance, it helps to find people who would have profited from the promulgation, and these will generally be people who are in one sense or another playing non-zero-sum games across ethnic bounds.

Regardless of when the story of Ruth emerged and when it was first written down, the decision to include it in the Hebrew Bible came after the exile-after the monotheistic impulse emerged clearly in Second Isaiah, after Yahweh's condemnation of the Moabites had appeared in Zephaniah ("The remnant of my people shall plunder them") and in Ezekiel ("I will lay open the flank of Moab from the towns on its frontier"). 36 36 That "Ruth the Moabite" should in the end be welcomed into the Jewish canon is a tribute to the evolutionary potential of morality. That "Ruth the Moabite" should in the end be welcomed into the Jewish canon is a tribute to the evolutionary potential of morality.

Also encouraging is the book of Jonah, a book probably written after the exile and, like Ruth, certainly admitted to the Jewish canon then. If you ask people to name a remarkable fact about Jonah, they may note that he spent time inside a whale (or, as the Bible actually puts it, a large fish) and lived to tell about it. But that's not as remarkable as another of the book's plot twists.

As the story begins, G.o.d has told Jonah to go preach in the city of Nineveh, to reprimand the Ninevens for their evil ways. Jonah resists his calling. He tries to flee on a boat, only to get swallowed by the sea and then by the fish after a Yahweh-induced storm. G.o.d releases him but insists that he go to Nineveh and fulfill his mission. There Jonah warns the people about G.o.d's impending punishment. This gets the attention of Nineveh's king, who urgently tells his people to repent-to fast, wear sackcloth, and "turn from their evil ways and from the violence that is in their hands. Who knows? G.o.d may relent and change his mind; he may turn from his fierce anger, so that we do not perish." 37 37 G.o.d indeed relents, and Jonah isn't pleased. This is just what he feared when first given his preaching a.s.signment, he says -that Yahweh would prove in the end to be a "gracious G.o.d and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love." 38 38 Jonah's revulsion at such mercy may seem strange, but consider that Nineveh is the capital of a.s.syria, the empire that for so long tormented Israel. Jonah's revulsion at such mercy may seem strange, but consider that Nineveh is the capital of a.s.syria, the empire that for so long tormented Israel. 39 39 In this light, if anything should seem strange it is Yahweh's compa.s.sion for the Ninevens. Certainly Jonah never fathoms it. The book ends with G.o.d trying to explain it to him: "Should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left... ?" In this light, if anything should seem strange it is Yahweh's compa.s.sion for the Ninevens. Certainly Jonah never fathoms it. The book ends with G.o.d trying to explain it to him: "Should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left... ?" 40 40 This verse is striking not just because it is Ninevens that G.o.d is concerned about, but because of the subtlety of his concern. Though their repentance is ostensibly what won them forgiveness, G.o.d seems tolerant of the moral confusion that got them in the doghouse to begin with. When he says they "do not know their right hand from their left," he is saying, in the vernacular of the day, that they do not know good from evil.

Traditionally, this sort of ignorance-not knowing good from evil-is what had stirred G.o.d's wrath, not his compa.s.sion. This was why the Israelites had suffered so much: because they kept forgetting that worshipping G.o.ds other than Yahweh was evil, and Yahweh punished such ignorance. And this was why G.o.d had vowed to punish roughly every known nation: because they hadn't realized that it was bad to attack or insult Yahweh's people. Now suddenly Yahweh not only pities the morally obtuse, but pities them even if they're Israel's past persecutors. In the book of Ezekiel, G.o.d was proud of having made a.s.syria suffer "as its wickedness deserves." 41 41 Now, in Jonah, the suffering of a.s.syrians gives G.o.d no pleasure, and their wickedness he sees as lamentable confusion. This is a G.o.d capable of radical growth. Now, in Jonah, the suffering of a.s.syrians gives G.o.d no pleasure, and their wickedness he sees as lamentable confusion. This is a G.o.d capable of radical growth.

The Virtues of Empire.

Capacity for growth is a good thing, but what the world really needs is a G.o.d that does does grow. Today globalization has made the planet too small to peacefully accommodate large religions that are at odds. If the Abrahamic G.o.d-the G.o.d of Jews and the G.o.d of Christians and the G.o.d of Muslims-doesn't foster tolerance, then we're all in trouble. We need a G.o.d whose sympathies correspond to the scale of social organization, the global scale. What does the Hebrew Bible tell us about the prospects for a global G.o.d? grow. Today globalization has made the planet too small to peacefully accommodate large religions that are at odds. If the Abrahamic G.o.d-the G.o.d of Jews and the G.o.d of Christians and the G.o.d of Muslims-doesn't foster tolerance, then we're all in trouble. We need a G.o.d whose sympathies correspond to the scale of social organization, the global scale. What does the Hebrew Bible tell us about the prospects for a global G.o.d?

In ancient times, the closest thing to globalization was the formation of multinational empires. People of different ethnicities and religions were pulled together under one roof, onto a single platform of economic exchange. Life among these peoples was, like life among diverse peoples in a globalized world, non-zero-sum: there was mutual gain if they got along and collaborated, and mutual loss if they didn't. After the exile Israel found itself in this very situation; a nation that had once been independent, or had grudgingly accepted the status of va.s.sal state, was now firmly ensconced in an empire-an empire willing to respect its religion so long as it got along with its neighbors. So the question is: Did the Abrahamic G.o.d, in the early years of monotheism, evince sensitivity to the sort of non-zero-sumness that characterizes the modern world? Did the G.o.d of Israel grow morally when moral growth was in the interest of the Israelites?

The two data points above-Ruth and Jonah-are certainly encouraging, a.s.suming these books are indeed postexilic. Yahweh's newfound sympathy for Ninevens, in the book of Jonah, was sympathy for a people who were now part of the same empire as the Israelites. So too with the book of Ruth's inclusive att.i.tude toward the Moabites. In parts of the Bible written before the exile, the Moabites' origins had been cast in disparaging terms; their founder, Moab, was a product of incest, born of a drunken s.e.xual encounter between Lot and one of his daughters. 42 42 Now, postexile, Moabites get a more respectable place in the family tree-they are ancestors of King David himself. What a difference an empire makes! Now, postexile, Moabites get a more respectable place in the family tree-they are ancestors of King David himself. What a difference an empire makes!

Perhaps the best evidence for the moral growth of G.o.d after the exile comes via the biblical author (or authors) known as the Priestly source. The Priestly source (first posited as part of the Wellhausen hypothesis discussed in chapter 5) is so called because it reflects the perspective of the priestly cla.s.s. Most scholars judge the Priestly source-"P" for short -to have been writing either during the exile or right after it (or, possibly, both). 43 43 Either way, it seems safe to say that P had the blessing of the Persian Empire's leadership. After all, the Persians, in returning Israelites to Jerusalem postexile and granting Israel some degree of self-rule, wanted Israel's ruling cla.s.s to be reliably supportive of imperial aims, and would have exerted influence accordingly. So if P consists of priests who were writing shortly after the exile, these are priests who pa.s.sed muster with Persia. So too if P was writing Either way, it seems safe to say that P had the blessing of the Persian Empire's leadership. After all, the Persians, in returning Israelites to Jerusalem postexile and granting Israel some degree of self-rule, wanted Israel's ruling cla.s.s to be reliably supportive of imperial aims, and would have exerted influence accordingly. So if P consists of priests who were writing shortly after the exile, these are priests who pa.s.sed muster with Persia. So too if P was writing during during the exile; had the priests who held sway in Babylon during the exile not been to Persia's liking, their writings probably wouldn't have become a formative influence in postexilic Israel. In all likelihood, P is the voice of empire, and its values are those Persia wanted to implant in the new Israel. the exile; had the priests who held sway in Babylon during the exile not been to Persia's liking, their writings probably wouldn't have become a formative influence in postexilic Israel. In all likelihood, P is the voice of empire, and its values are those Persia wanted to implant in the new Israel.

A look at P's worldview suggests that empire can indeed expand moral horizons. For starters, P is more inclined than earlier biblical authors to say that many nations-not just Israel-figure directly in G.o.d's plan. In pre-exilic texts, there are descriptions of G.o.d having promised Abraham that great things lay in store for his descendants: they would be many, and they would bring good things to the earth. But the only reference to an actual political ent.i.ty emanating from Abraham is in the singular: "I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great." 44 44 According to the Priestly source, G.o.d's promise to Abraham is a bit different: "you shall be the ancestor of a mult.i.tude of nations." According to the Priestly source, G.o.d's promise to Abraham is a bit different: "you shall be the ancestor of a mult.i.tude of nations." 45 45 A similar shift of emphasis comes in the story of Jacob, Abraham's grandson and the father of Israel. In a part of Genesis that seems to have been written before the exile, Jacob's destiny is spelled out in these instructions from his father, Isaac: "let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you." 46 46 In P's writing, by contrast, Isaac's parting wish to Jacob is that G.o.d may bless him so that he will "become a community of peoples." In P's writing, by contrast, Isaac's parting wish to Jacob is that G.o.d may bless him so that he will "become a community of peoples." 47 47 And, according to P, G.o.d himself reinforces this more communal vision, telling Jacob that a "nation and a community of nations" will issue from him. And, according to P, G.o.d himself reinforces this more communal vision, telling Jacob that a "nation and a community of nations" will issue from him. 48 48 If the Priestly source is indeed here exhibiting the internationally inclusive impulse of empire, that could explain some other things-in particular, the curious term "El Shaddai." As we saw in chapter 5, that term is commonly rendered as G.o.d Almighty (though the "Almighty" part may be a mistranslation, and the "G.o.d" part may be misleading, since "El" could have referred either to "G.o.d" generically or the specific G.o.d named El). There we also saw Yahweh, in the book of Exodus, appear to Moses and explain that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob hadn't known him as Yahweh but rather as "El Shaddai." In trying to make sense of this attempt to equate Yahweh with another G.o.d, we a.s.sumed that the story had entered Israelite tradition very early, perhaps reflecting the convergence of diverse tribes to form Israel: maybe, we said, Israel was formed by a merger of El worshippers and Yahweh worshippers, and this story arose to reconcile their traditions.

But it's also possible that the story took shape much later and reflects later political realities-and maybe those realities were about Israel's international environment, not its internal politics. So it's notable that this verse, Exodus 6:3, is generally attributed to the Priestly source. Is it possible that this equation of Yahweh with El Shaddai somehow served Persia's aims of imperial harmony, and hence of smooth relations between Israel and its neighbors?

Other clues suggest as much. The one other time the Bible equates Yahweh and El Shaddai also comes in a pa.s.sage attributed to the Priestly source-and it comes in that very pa.s.sage, described above, where P has G.o.d predicting that he will make of Abraham great "nations," not just a "nation." 49 49 Further, in those two pa.s.sages in which a similarly communal vision is imparted to Jacob, G.o.d is again referred to as "El Shaddai" (though not explicitly identified with Yahweh). Further, in those two pa.s.sages in which a similarly communal vision is imparted to Jacob, G.o.d is again referred to as "El Shaddai" (though not explicitly identified with Yahweh). 50 50 So there are three separate Priestly pa.s.sages where the term "El Shaddai" is linked to a communal vision of the Abrahamic lineage's future-to a community either of "nations" or of "peoples." That's a lot of pa.s.sages, given that the term "El Shaddai" appears only seven times in the entire Hebrew Bible! So there are three separate Priestly pa.s.sages where the term "El Shaddai" is linked to a communal vision of the Abrahamic lineage's future-to a community either of "nations" or of "peoples." That's a lot of pa.s.sages, given that the term "El Shaddai" appears only seven times in the entire Hebrew Bible! 51 51 But what is the exact logical link between this particular name for G.o.d and internationally inclusive language? One possibility is that one or more of the nations that were, like Israel, part of the Persian Empire called their G.o.d El Shaddai, and P was a.s.serting that their G.o.d and Israel's G.o.d were one and the same. 52 52 Another, more interesting, possibility is that P is thinking on a larger scale, resolving a kind of tension created in Israel's psyche by the project of imperial consolidation. In Genesis, P lays out a comprehensive family tree of national patriarchs in the Middle East and thus establishes the degrees of kinship among nations. (For example, since Edom's patriarch, Esau, like Israel's patriarch, Jacob, is a son of Isaac, Israel and Edom are closely related.) This "table of nations" isn't an original composition; P is consolidating and sometimes supplementing patriarchal lineages laid down by other biblical authors. Still, as the Swiss scholar Konrad Schmid has suggested, P's a.s.sembling the material into a single family tree may be an attempt to strike a note of harmony with nearby nations.

Certainly this could make sense from a Persian point of view; since many nations on that tree were now part of the Persian Empire, the bonds of kinship within the empire were emphasized. In fact, for all we know, the same family tree was promulgated in other parts of the empire, with the same implied moral. In any event, within Israel the moral would have been clear: Israel's patriarch, Jacob, was related-however distantly in some cases-to patriarchs all across the empire.

But this is where tension arises between the imperial project and Israel's self-esteem. If a.s.sembling the family tree emphasized the previously obscure fact that Jacob was the grandson of Abraham, and if Abraham's G.o.d had traditionally been El Shaddai, then the family tree would be depicting Israel's G.o.d Yahweh as in some sense subordinate to a different G.o.d-unless, of course, it turned out that Yahweh and El Shaddai were just two different names for the same G.o.d. 53 53 In this scenario P is solving the problem created by the very idea of an international family tree-keeping a given nation's G.o.d on top notwithstanding the hierarchical nature of family trees. 54 54 But if this was the problem facing P, equating Yahweh with the G.o.d of Abraham wouldn't by itself meet the challenge. For the tree went beyond Abraham, and suggested that some national patriarchs might out-rank even him. Whereas Abraham was a tenth-generation descendant of Noah, the patriarchs of the a.s.syrians and the Arameans were third-generation descendants! Now, maybe such status befits two such estimable const.i.tuents of the Persian Empire, but how should an Israelite theologian, such as P, handle the implied stature of their national G.o.ds? Was the G.o.d a.s.sur of a.s.syria But if this was the problem facing P, equating Yahweh with the G.o.d of Abraham wouldn't by itself meet the challenge. For the tree went beyond Abraham, and suggested that some national patriarchs might out-rank even him. Whereas Abraham was a tenth-generation descendant of Noah, the patriarchs of the a.s.syrians and the Arameans were third-generation descendants! Now, maybe such status befits two such estimable const.i.tuents of the Persian Empire, but how should an Israelite theologian, such as P, handle the implied stature of their national G.o.ds? Was the G.o.d a.s.sur of a.s.syria also also the same as Yahweh? the same as Yahweh?

Maybe so. It turns out that El Shaddai El Shaddai isn't P's most common deviation from the name isn't P's most common deviation from the name Yahweh. Yahweh. That t.i.tle goes to the word That t.i.tle goes to the word elohim elohim. And this deviation may have even broader geopolitical significance.

G.o.d with a Capital G.

The word elohim elohim may have entered Hebrew via Aramaic, the language of the Arameans, who lived north of Israel. This name shows up in presumably pre-exilic scriptures as well as in the Priestly source-not surprisingly, since Aramaic had been growing as a regional lingua franca since the eighth century. But by the same token-because the term may have entered Hebrew via Aramaic, the language of the Arameans, who lived north of Israel. This name shows up in presumably pre-exilic scriptures as well as in the Priestly source-not surprisingly, since Aramaic had been growing as a regional lingua franca since the eighth century. But by the same token-because the term elohim elohim thus connoted the transcendence of national bounds-it fits especially well into P's internationalist perspective; thus connoted the transcendence of national bounds-it fits especially well into P's internationalist perspective; elohim elohim suggested, as one scholar has put it, a divinity that was "international and unspecific." suggested, as one scholar has put it, a divinity that was "international and unspecific." 55 55 Indeed, Elohim Elohim is the term used for G.o.d when P carries his governance across the entire planet. It is P who added to the Noah story the idea that the rainbow was created after the great flood as the sign of "an everlasting covenant between G.o.d and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth"-and the word used for "G.o.d" in that pa.s.sage is is the term used for G.o.d when P carries his governance across the entire planet. It is P who added to the Noah story the idea that the rainbow was created after the great flood as the sign of "an everlasting covenant between G.o.d and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth"-and the word used for "G.o.d" in that pa.s.sage is Elohim Elohim. So too it is P who, in the first book of Genesis, has "Elohim" bless the entire human species and give it custody of the earth. 56 56 Konrad Schmid sees P's three different names for G.o.d-Elohim, El Shaddai, and Yahweh-corresponding to three "concentric circles." The Priestly source, he says, depicts "a circle of the world over which G.o.d stands as Elohim, an Abrahamic circle to which G.o.d relates as El Shaddai, and finally an Israelite circle inside which G.o.d can be called upon with his real and cultic name Yahweh." 57 57 In this view, the term In this view, the term Elohim Elohim acquires a new sense for Israelites after the exile; P has in effect changed it from a generic noun (our G.o.d, their G.o.d) into a proper noun (G.o.d). acquires a new sense for Israelites after the exile; P has in effect changed it from a generic noun (our G.o.d, their G.o.d) into a proper noun (G.o.d). 58 58 In one sense, this is hardly surprising and may not have seemed new; if you're a monotheist, like P, then the generic noun for G.o.d almost In one sense, this is hardly surprising and may not have seemed new; if you're a monotheist, like P, then the generic noun for G.o.d almost has has to be, in a sense, the same as the proper noun for G.o.d. Still, Schmid thinks this grammatical maneuver had a subtler implication that was new: P was saying that the G.o.ds of the different nations-all the elohims-are just different manifestations of the same underlying divinity: Elohim with a capital E. to be, in a sense, the same as the proper noun for G.o.d. Still, Schmid thinks this grammatical maneuver had a subtler implication that was new: P was saying that the G.o.ds of the different nations-all the elohims-are just different manifestations of the same underlying divinity: Elohim with a capital E.

Compare the kind of monotheism Schmid attributes to P with the kind found in Second Isaiah. There monotheism arises through the exclusion exclusion of other nations' G.o.ds. The sense is that these nations-at this point enemies of Israel-are wrong to believe in their G.o.ds, and won't see who the real G.o.d is until they have a jarring encounter with him ("I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh.... Then all flesh shall know that I am Yahweh your Savior"). of other nations' G.o.ds. The sense is that these nations-at this point enemies of Israel-are wrong to believe in their G.o.ds, and won't see who the real G.o.d is until they have a jarring encounter with him ("I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh.... Then all flesh shall know that I am Yahweh your Savior"). 59 59 The Priestly source, in contrast, a.s.serts monotheism by The Priestly source, in contrast, a.s.serts monotheism by affirming affirming the existence of other nations' G.o.ds. With P, it seems, Abrahamic monotheism has been converted from a fiercely nationalistic and exclusive theology-the theology present at its creation-to a more international and inclusive one. the existence of other nations' G.o.ds. With P, it seems, Abrahamic monotheism has been converted from a fiercely nationalistic and exclusive theology-the theology present at its creation-to a more international and inclusive one.

If so, this is yet another tribute to the malleability of G.o.d. Monotheism had emerged as a tool for elevating Israelites above their neighbors, and now it was becoming a way of putting Israel on the same platform as its neighbors. The Abrahamic G.o.d was growing.

But About Those Egyptians...

There were limits to the growth. After all, the Persian Empire didn't include the whole world. In fact, after the exile the empire had one major rival for dominance: Egypt. If indeed P is the voice of the Persian Empire around the end of exile, then you would expect its att.i.tude toward Egypt, and Egypt's theology, to be notably lacking in charity; the postexilic G.o.d may be universal in dominion, but that doesn't mean his sympathies are evenly spread across the globe.

And, sure enough, in P's rendering Egypt seems to be on the other side of a moral divide. For starters, in that "table of nations," no nation is more distantly related to Israel than Egypt. Whereas Abraham, Israel's patriarch, is descended from Noah's son Shem, whom the Bible identifies as a Yahweh worshipper, 60 60 Egypt is descended from another of Noah's sons, Ham, whose religious affiliation isn't mentioned and who is emphatically of ill repute. Egypt is descended from another of Noah's sons, Ham, whose religious affiliation isn't mentioned and who is emphatically of ill repute. 61 61 Egypt's morally dubious status is reinforced by P's addition to the Bible's historical narrative. To be sure, the Priestly source didn't invent invent the antagonism with Egypt that pervades the book of Exodus; pre-exilic verses also convey enmity, and almost certainly some of the original tribes of Israel had a genuine history of conflict with Egypt. Still, the Priestly source deepened the Bible's demonization of Egypt. the antagonism with Egypt that pervades the book of Exodus; pre-exilic verses also convey enmity, and almost certainly some of the original tribes of Israel had a genuine history of conflict with Egypt. Still, the Priestly source deepened the Bible's demonization of Egypt.

It is P, for example, who tells us that "The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, and made their lives bitter with hard service." So the Israelites "groaned under their slavery, and cried out," and G.o.d heard them. And, after hearing them, G.o.d sounds, toward Egypt, the way he sounded toward just about every nation back when Second Isaiah was depicting virtually the whole world as Israel's enemy. "The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them." 62 62 The Priestly source then fleshes out G.o.d's stretched-out hand: Yahweh turns Egypt's entire water supply into blood and, as if that weren't enough, has the frogs that formerly inhabited the water swarm the Egyptians. Then it's time to bring on the bugs-lice, gnats, or mosquitoes, depending on the translation. Next, Yahweh inflicts "festering boils" on the skin of all humans and animals in Egypt. Then one night he kills every firstborn human and animal in Egypt, an event that P recounts shortly before prescribing the Pa.s.sover feast with which Israelites are to forever commemorate this night. 63 63 Here the voice of the Persian Empire is helping to ensure that enmity toward Egypt-toward an enemy of the Persian Empire -will figure centrally in Judaism's ritual calendar. Here the voice of the Persian Empire is helping to ensure that enmity toward Egypt-toward an enemy of the Persian Empire -will figure centrally in Judaism's ritual calendar.

Amid the Pa.s.sover narrative, the Priestly source seems to get into some theological trouble. P has Yahweh declare that "on all the G.o.ds of Egypt I will execute judgments." 64 64 G.o.ds? But isn't P supposed to be a monotheist? Yes, but P may be imagining a day when there had been more than one G.o.d on earth, back before Yahweh a.s.sumed total control. And, since one of the "judgments" Yahweh may have "executed" was the death penalty, this story could serve as a milestone in the emergence of monotheism. In any event, this odd pa.s.sage drives home the fact that, even if Schmid is right and the essential drift of P's theology is internationally inclusive, it isn't G.o.ds? But isn't P supposed to be a monotheist? Yes, but P may be imagining a day when there had been more than one G.o.d on earth, back before Yahweh a.s.sumed total control. And, since one of the "judgments" Yahweh may have "executed" was the death penalty, this story could serve as a milestone in the emergence of monotheism. In any event, this odd pa.s.sage drives home the fact that, even if Schmid is right and the essential drift of P's theology is internationally inclusive, it isn't universally universally inclusive. Apparently if G.o.ds want to qualify for P's inclusive theology-if they want to be manifestations of Elohim - it helps for them to be attached to a nation that's within the Persian Empire. inclusive. Apparently if G.o.ds want to qualify for P's inclusive theology-if they want to be manifestations of Elohim - it helps for them to be attached to a nation that's within the Persian Empire.

In short, P is a voice of far-flung friendship, but not universal friendship. So the G.o.d described by P-the more or less official G.o.d of the Israelites upon their return from exile-hadn't grown as much as we might like. But could we really ask for more? After all, in the time of P, the sinews of non-zero-sumness hadn't stretched all the way around the world; Israel didn't have win-win opportunities with, say, East Asia, and there weren't even live prospects for collaboration with Egypt so long as Egypt was on Persia's enemies list. The Abrahamic G.o.d had extended his sympathies out to the frontiers of perceived non-zero-sumness, which is all we expect of a G.o.d.

But Is It G.o.d?

Or, rather, all we expect of a "G.o.d." The G.o.d I've been describing is a G.o.d in quotation marks, a G.o.d that exists in people's heads. When I said in chapter 5, for example, that Yahweh was strong yet compa.s.sionate, I just meant that his adherents thought of him thought of him as strong yet compa.s.sionate. There was no particular reason to believe that there was a G.o.d "out there" that matched this internal conception. Similarly, when I say G.o.d shows moral progress, what I'm really saying is that people's as strong yet compa.s.sionate. There was no particular reason to believe that there was a G.o.d "out there" that matched this internal conception. Similarly, when I say G.o.d shows moral progress, what I'm really saying is that people's conception conception of G.o.d moves in a morally progressive direction. of G.o.d moves in a morally progressive direction.

From the standpoint of a traditional believer, of course, this isn't an inspiring thought. Indeed, all told, the worldview I'm laying out amounts to a kind of good-news/ bad-news joke for traditionalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The bad news is that the G.o.d you thought was born perfect was in fact born imperfect. The good news is that this imperfect G.o.d isn't really a G.o.d anyway, just a figment of the human imagination. Obviously, for the traditional believer, this is all bad news.

Then again, traditional believers come into the conversation with high expectations: that an ancient theology which took shape millennia before science started revealing the nature of the world should survive modern critical reflection unscathed. These days there are people who would call themselves religiously inclined, or at least spiritually inclined, who ask for less. They are born into a scientific world that seems to offer no particular sustenance to spiritual inquiry, and they would settle for evidence that this inquiry isn't hopeless after all. They are a bit like Fyodor Pavlovich in The Brothers Karamazov The Brothers Karamazov. When told by his atheist son that there is no G.o.d and no immortality, he reflects glumly, "There's absolute nothingness, then." But then he presses on: "Perhaps there is just something? Anything is better than nothing."

Is there something? Is there anything? Is there any evidence of something? Any signs that there's more to life than the sum of its subatomic particles-some larger purpose, some deeper meaning, maybe even something that would qualify as "divine" in some sense of that word? If you approach the spiritual quest with hopes this modest-with the humble skepticism of modernity rather than the revealed certainty of the ancient world-then a rational appraisal of the situation may prove more uplifting. There may be, as Fyodor Pavlovich would put it, some evidence of something.

What might qualify as evidence of a larger purpose at work in the world? For one thing, a moral direction in history. If history naturally carries human consciousness toward moral enlightenment, however slowly and fitfully, that would be evidence that there's some point to it all. At least, it would be more evidence than the alternative-if history showed no discernible direction, or if history showed a downward direction: humanity as a whole getting more morally obtuse, more vengeful and bigoted.

Or, to put the point back into the context at hand: To the extent that "G.o.d" grows, that is evidence-maybe not ma.s.sive evidence, but some some evidence-of higher purpose. Which raises this question: If "G.o.d" indeed grows, and grows with stubborn persistence, does that mean we can start thinking about taking the quotation marks off? That is: if the human conception of G.o.d features moral growth, and if this reflects corresponding moral growth on the part of humanity itself, and if humanity's moral growth flows from basic dynamics underlying history, and if we conclude that this growth is therefore evidence of "higher purpose," does this amount to evidence of an actual G.o.d? evidence-of higher purpose. Which raises this question: If "G.o.d" indeed grows, and grows with stubborn persistence, does that mean we can start thinking about taking the quotation marks off? That is: if the human conception of G.o.d features moral growth, and if this reflects corresponding moral growth on the part of humanity itself, and if humanity's moral growth flows from basic dynamics underlying history, and if we conclude that this growth is therefore evidence of "higher purpose," does this amount to evidence of an actual G.o.d?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. "Higher purpose" is a pretty vague term, and you can imagine it being imparted by something quite different than a G.o.d as G.o.ds are traditionally conceived. 65 65 Anyway, we'll get into some of the theological implications of a morally directional history in the next chapter. Then, in subsequent chapters, we'll focus on the history itself. I'll try to show that on balance, notwithstanding bursts of backsliding, human conceptions of the divine do get morally richer-that "G.o.d" tends to grow morally because humankind is itself growing morally. And the reason, I'll argue, is that circ.u.mstances conducive to moral growth-the breadth and density of non-zero-sum dynamics-intensify as time goes by. Technological evolution (wheels, roads, cuneiform, alphabets, trains, microchips) puts more and more people in non-zero-sum relationship with more and more other people at greater and greater distances, often across ethnic, national, or religious bounds. This doesn't guarantee moral progress, but it shifts the odds in that direction, and in the long run, the odds tend to win out.

That the stubborn growth of non-zero-sumness is central to human history, built into the very engine of cultural evolution, is an argument that s.p.a.ce doesn't permit me to make at length. (I made it in my previous book Nonzero Nonzero.) But this growing non-zero-sumness will nonetheless be visible as this book proceeds, and G.o.d's growth continues. It will be the prime mover behind G.o.d's growth. Or maybe we should just say the "mover" behind G.o.d's growth, since the possibility persists that this growing non-zero-sumness was itself set in motion by something else-conceivably an old-fashoned G.o.d, as traditionalists might hope, and conceivably something more abstract, more philosophically modern; but in any event, something deeper.

However, before we proceed with the story of G.o.d's growth, it's worth taking a look at the ancient Abrahamic thinker who tried supremely to have it both ways: to see divinity abstractly, as a kind of logic running through history, yet to do so in a way that preserved the emotional satisfaction of traditional religion. As it happens, that thinker was Philo of Alexandria.

Chapter Nine.

Logos: The Divine Algorithm.

The conflict between science and religion is sometimes cast as a geographic metaphor-as a tension between Athens, ancient well-spring of secular philosophy, and Jerusalem, symbol of revealed religious truth. Many early religious thinkers ignored this tension or tried to minimize it. "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" asked the Christian theologian Tertullian around 200 CE. The less the better, he felt. Having received the revealed truth via Christ, "We want no curious disputation." 1 1 Well, that was then. Today science is so plainly powerful that theologians can't casually dismiss secular knowledge. For most educated and thoughtful people, Athens and Jerusalem must be reconciled or Jerusalem will fall off the map.

Two millennia ago, Philo of Alexandria felt this imperative intimately. Alexandria was situated between Athens and Jerusalem -physically, not just metaphorically-and Philo was tied to both cultures. His Jewish heritage and his Greek milieu together inspired him to seek a synthesis of biblical theology and Greek philosophy. He set out to show that revealed religion could not only withstand the challenge of reason but be nourished by reason, and vice versa.

In a way, this is yet another example of non-zero-sum logic encouraging intellectual synthesis. Just as the interdependence of Mesopotamian cities in the third millennium BCE had led them to weave a pan-Sumerian pantheon, the interdependence of Jews and Greeks led Philo to fuse Jewish and Greek thought. And this wasn't just a matter of calculation, of Philo's realizing that Jews and Greeks would get along better if they saw their worldviews as compatible. Philo partook of Greek culture-theater, horse races, boxing matches-and no doubt had close friends who were Greek intellectuals. 2 2 The closer friends are, the stronger their need to share a common worldview. This is just human nature: our instincts for playing non-zero-sum games, for maintaining social allies, encourage intellectual convergence, just as our instincts for playing zero-sum games encourage intellectual cleavage when we define people as enemies. The closer friends are, the stronger their need to share a common worldview. This is just human nature: our instincts for playing non-zero-sum games, for maintaining social allies, encourage intellectual convergence, just as our instincts for playing zero-sum games encourage intellectual cleavage when we define people as enemies.

And, non-zero-sumness aside, there was the problem of cognitive dissonance. Philo believed that all of Judaism and large parts of Greek philosophy were true, and so long as they seemed at odds, he couldn't rest easy. 3 3 But his mission went beyond rendering them compatible. If the original revelation of ultimate truth had indeed come from Yahweh, then the deepest insights of Greek philosophy must have been prefigured in scripture. Arguing this case would demand all Philo's intellectual dexterity and would yield a creative, often allegorical, interpretation of the Bible. "He read Plato in terms of Moses, and Moses in terms of Plato, to the point that he was convinced that each had said essentially the same things," wrote the historian of religion Erwin Goodenough, whose several early-twentieth-century books on Philo helped establish his standing as one of antiquity's most important thinkers. "Indeed, he used to say that Plato had cribbed his ideas from Moses, but his biblical interpretations often read as though he thought Moses had been trained by Plato." 4 4 However strained some of Philo's intellectual gymnastics, they produced something of enduring value. If people of any Abrahamic faith-Judaism, Christianity, or Islam-are looking for the most ancient Abrahamic theologian whose language lends itself to a modern sensibility, Philo may be their man. For that matter, if they are looking not for the oldest science-friendly theological language, but just for the best best science-friendly theological language, Philo may still be their man. At the core of his sometimes ungainly body of theology is the basis of a viable modern theology. science-friendly theological language, Philo may still be their man. At the core of his sometimes ungainly body of theology is the basis of a viable modern theology.

The bridge between Athens and Jerusalem is only one of the intercultural construction projects Philo advanced. While Jesus was preaching in Galilee, Philo, over in Alexandria, was laying out a world-view with key ingredients, and specific terminology, that would show up in Christianity as it solidified over the next two centuries. Meanwhile, other parts of his writing are reminiscent of Buddhism, and for that matter of mystical traditions that would develop in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Here, too, Philo is antic.i.p.ating the modern-antic.i.p.ating a spiritual practice that needn't (though it can) involve a governing deity. But these feats are outgrowths of the mission that was dearest to Philo's heart, and with which we should begin: the reconciliation of Jewish religion and Greek philosophy.

G.o.d as Programmer.

Philo's synthesis of faith and reason ranged all over the map, as he a.s.serted the ultimate rationality of not just theology but ritual. (Apparently he was the first person to defend the Jewish rite of circ.u.mcision on grounds of personal hygiene.) 5 5 But from a modern standpoint, his biggest contribution may have been to confront the most obvious obstacle to rapprochement between traditional religion and a scientific sensibility: the idea of an anthropomorphic and frequently interventionist G.o.d. But from a modern standpoint, his biggest contribution may have been to confront the most obvious obstacle to rapprochement between traditional religion and a scientific sensibility: the idea of an anthropomorphic and frequently interventionist G.o.d.

In the Bible, G.o.d had occasionally been depicted as physically anthropomorphic (sitting on a throne, for example) and often as psychologically anthropomorphic (p.r.o.ne to jealousy, rage, and so on). This conception of G.o.ds had been falling out of favor among Greek philosophers since Xenophanes, five centuries before Philo's time, noted its arbitrariness. If horses and cattle did theology, he had a.s.serted, "horses would draw the forms of the G.o.ds like horses, and cattle like cattle." 6 6 Meanwhile, a frequently interventionist G.o.d-a G.o.d that deployed plagues, storms, and bolts of fire to keep humanity on track-didn't coexist easily with a scientific worldview. That worldview wouldn't mature for nearly two millennia after Philo, but its animating spirit, and its aspiration to universal explanation, had emerged centuries earlier, by the time of Aristotle. Meanwhile, a frequently interventionist G.o.d-a G.o.d that deployed plagues, storms, and bolts of fire to keep humanity on track-didn't coexist easily with a scientific worldview. That worldview wouldn't mature for nearly two millennia after Philo, but its animating spirit, and its aspiration to universal explanation, had emerged centuries earlier, by the time of Aristotle.

Philo handily dispatched the Bible's anthropomorphic depiction of G.o.d by calling it allegory. 7 7 And as for what G.o.d And as for what G.o.d was was like if he wasn't like a human: though Philo seems to have conceived of G.o.d as in like if he wasn't like a human: though Philo seems to have conceived of G.o.d as in some some sense personal, sense personal, 8 8 his bottom line was that "no name nor utterance nor conception of any sort is adequate." his bottom line was that "no name nor utterance nor conception of any sort is adequate." 9 9 But jettisoning an anthropomorphic and often interventionist G.o.d posed a problem. It was easy enough to say that G.o.d defies human conception and is off in another realm, beyond the merely material-that he is ineffable and transcendent. But if that's the case, then what exactly is his connection to the world? How does he get credit for its everyday operation? Moreover, what is his connection to us? us? How can we get consolation, spiritual sustenance, and moral guidance from a G.o.d who has been sealed off? As Good-enough put the challenge Philo faced, "There must be an Unrelated Being who is yet somehow r