The Evolution Of God Part 7

Paul didn't go so far as to ban speaking in tongues. But he did stress that speaking to your brothers in a language they can't understand isn't a loving act, whereas to speak intelligibly was to "speak to other people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation." Accordingly, he laid down some guidelines. As a rule, no one should speak in tongues unless there is someone present who can validly interpret, and even then the speakers should be few and orderly: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn." Prophecy, on the other hand, is fine, because it is intelligible and hence can serve others. (But mightn't people use their claimed prophetic powers to question Paul's authority? Don't worry -Paul is way ahead of you: "Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized.") 16 16 The beauty of "brotherly love" wasn't just that it produced cohesion in Christian congregations. Invoking familial feelings also allowed Paul to a.s.sert his authority at the expense of rivals. After all, wasn't it he, not they, who had founded the family of Corinthian Christians? He tells the Corinthians that he is writing "to admonish you as my beloved children.... Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me." 17 17 Had Paul stayed among the Corinthians, he might have kept the congregation united by the mere force of his presence, with less preaching about the need for unity-the need for all brothers to be one in "the body of Christ." 18 18 But because he felt compelled to move on and cultivate churches across the empire, he had to implant brotherly love as a governing value and nurture it a.s.siduously. In the case of 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, the result was some of western civilization's most beautiful literature-if, perhaps, more beautiful out of context than in. But because he felt compelled to move on and cultivate churches across the empire, he had to implant brotherly love as a governing value and nurture it a.s.siduously. In the case of 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, the result was some of western civilization's most beautiful literature-if, perhaps, more beautiful out of context than in.

Love That Crosses Borders.

Thus, for the ambitious preacher of early Christianity, the doctrine of brotherly love had at least two virtues. First, fraternal bonding made churches attractive places to be, providing a familial warmth that was otherwise lacking, for many, in a time of urbanization and flux. As the scholar Elaine Pagels has written, "From the beginning, what attracted outsiders who walked into a gathering of Christians... was the presence of a group joined by spiritual power into an extended family." 19 19 (And there is no doubt that Paul wanted his churches to project an appealing image. In 1 Corinthians he asks: If "the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind?") (And there is no doubt that Paul wanted his churches to project an appealing image. In 1 Corinthians he asks: If "the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind?") 20 20 Second, the doctrine of brotherly love became a form of remote control, a tool Paul could use at a distance to induce congregational cohesion. Second, the doctrine of brotherly love became a form of remote control, a tool Paul could use at a distance to induce congregational cohesion.

Strictly speaking, this emphasis on brotherhood didn't always mean an emphasis on interethnic interethnic brotherhood. For all we know, some of these early congregations weren't ethnically diverse-in which case cohesion within individual churches didn't need to involve bonding across ethnic bounds. So where does this connotation of Christian brotherly love come from? brotherhood. For all we know, some of these early congregations weren't ethnically diverse-in which case cohesion within individual churches didn't need to involve bonding across ethnic bounds. So where does this connotation of Christian brotherly love come from?

Part of the answer is that transcending ethnicity was built into Paul's conception of his divinely imparted mission. He was to be the Apostle to the Gentiles; he was to carry the saving grace of the Jewish messiah-Jesus Christ-beyond the Jewish world. Here, at the origin of Paul's aspirations, he is crossing the bridge he famously crossed in saying there is no longer "Jew or Greek," for all are now eligible for G.o.d's salvation.

In putting Jew and Greek on an equal basis, Paul was, in a sense, placing pragmatism above scriptural principle. By Paul's own account, the scriptural basis for his mission to the Gentiles lay in the prophetic writings, notably in the apocalyptic expectations of Second Isaiah, who envisioned a coming messiah and a long overdue burst of worldwide reverence for Yahweh. And, as we saw in chapter 7, these pa.s.sages aren't exactly an ode to ethnic egalitarianism. The basic idea is that the Gentile nations will abjectly submit to the rule of Israel's G.o.d and hence to Israel. G.o.d promises the Israelites that after salvation arrives, Egyptians and Ethiopians alike "shall come over to you and be yours, they shall come over in chains and bow down to you. They will make supplication to you." Indeed, "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Thus, "In the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall triumph and glory." 21 21 Of course, Christians like to look back and stress the less nationalistic pa.s.sages of Second Isaiah-such as Yahweh's promise to bring salvation "to the end of the earth," with Israel ultimately serving a selfless role of illumination, as a "light unto the nations." 22 22 But these aren't the pa.s.sages Paul himself emphasized. Explaining his mission to the Gentiles in a letter to the Romans, he quotes the verse about every knee bowing and every tongue swearing without mentioning anything about a light unto the nations. He declares that his job is to help "win obedience from the Gentiles." In line with past apocalyptic prophets, he seems to think that the point of the exercise is for the world to submit to Israel's messiah; Jesus, Paul says in quoting First Isaiah, is "the one who rises to rule the Gentiles." But these aren't the pa.s.sages Paul himself emphasized. Explaining his mission to the Gentiles in a letter to the Romans, he quotes the verse about every knee bowing and every tongue swearing without mentioning anything about a light unto the nations. He declares that his job is to help "win obedience from the Gentiles." In line with past apocalyptic prophets, he seems to think that the point of the exercise is for the world to submit to Israel's messiah; Jesus, Paul says in quoting First Isaiah, is "the one who rises to rule the Gentiles." 23 23 And Paul seems to accept the idea that ethnic bloodlines can guarantee divine favor, even salvation, for those who wouldn't otherwise merit it; though many Jews don't see that Jesus is the Messiah, "as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors." And Paul seems to accept the idea that ethnic bloodlines can guarantee divine favor, even salvation, for those who wouldn't otherwise merit it; though many Jews don't see that Jesus is the Messiah, "as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors." 24 24 But ultimately these and other theoretical dispositions mattered little compared to the facts on the ground. Any residual scriptural overtones of Jewish superiority to Gentiles that Paul may have carried into his work were diluted by a key strategic decision he made early on.

Paul's Business Model.

There were other Jewish followers of Jesus who, like Paul, wanted to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. But many of them insisted that in order to qualify for Jesus's saving grace, Gentiles had to abide by the Jewish Law, the Torah, which meant following strict dietary rules and, moreover, undergoing circ.u.mcision. In the days before modern anesthesia, requiring grown men to have p.e.n.i.s surgery in order to join a religion fell under the rubric "disincentive."

Paul grasped the importance of such barriers to entry. So far as Gentiles were concerned, he jettisoned most of the Jewish dietary code and, with special emphasis, the circ.u.mcision mandate: "For in Christ Jesus neither circ.u.mcision nor uncirc.u.mcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love." Paul was so intent on dropping the circ.u.mcision barrier that, when he argued with fellow Jesus followers over this issue, his sense of brotherly love sometimes deserted him. In his letter to the Galatians he expressed the wish that those who preached mandatory circ.u.mcision would "castrate themselves!" 25 25 (And some scholars say that "castrate" is a euphemistic rendering of a Greek pa.s.sage signifying more dramatic surgery. "Cut the whole thing off!" is an alternative translation.) (And some scholars say that "castrate" is a euphemistic rendering of a Greek pa.s.sage signifying more dramatic surgery. "Cut the whole thing off!" is an alternative translation.) 26 26 There is little doubt about Paul's strategic wisdom. Many religions of the day, including some of the "mystery religions," were open to people of varied ethnicities. But these movements tended to have hurdles to membership, including financial ones, such as priests who charged initiation fees. 27 27 Christian churches enjoyed a compet.i.tive edge by having no such financial barriers, and Paul kept the edge sharp by making sure these weren't replaced by other kinds of barriers. Christian churches enjoyed a compet.i.tive edge by having no such financial barriers, and Paul kept the edge sharp by making sure these weren't replaced by other kinds of barriers.

This decision to leave recruiting unshackled by the Jewish Law not only mitigated the drift of Paul's letter to the Romans -the idea that his mission was to subjugate Gentiles on behalf of Israel's messiah. It also got Paul accused of "rejecting" the Torah. But this "rejection" was meant to apply to Gentile Gentile recruits to the Jesus movement. Indeed, Paul may have considered himself a good, Torah-abiding Jew, albeit one who, in contrast to most other Jews, was convinced that the Jewish messiah had finally arrived. (In none of his letters does Paul use the word "Christian.") recruits to the Jesus movement. Indeed, Paul may have considered himself a good, Torah-abiding Jew, albeit one who, in contrast to most other Jews, was convinced that the Jewish messiah had finally arrived. (In none of his letters does Paul use the word "Christian.") 28 28 Whether or not Paul thought of his ident.i.ty as now severed from Judaism, he couldn't afford to sever Judaism's ties to the Jesus movement, because he needed to use the infrastructure of Jewish worship. According to the book of Acts, when he came to a city and set out to recruit people to the movement, he sometimes started his preaching at the local synagogue. Indeed, according to Acts, some of Paul's most important early recruits were Jews. So, even as practical considerations distanced Paul's variant of the Jesus movement from Jewish ritual, they encouraged ongoing contact with the Jewish world. And, even as Paul chafed at the rejection of his doctrines by some Jews within the Jesus movement (to say nothing of Jews outside it), he continued to seek rapprochement, trying to preserve a broad base.

In short, the kind of bridge Paul built to the Gentile world wound up alienating a lot of Jews, and maybe even alienating Paul from them, but it was a bridge he couldn't afford to burn. So an inter-ethnic symbiosis persisted and colored Paul's writing. Thus did the phrase "neither Greek nor Jew" enter the scripture, with its enduring connotations of ethnic egalitarianism.

There were aspects of Paul's business model that pushed even more powerfully toward interethnic bonding. To see them, begin with the reference above to some "important early recruits" being Jews. Now leave aside the part about some of them being Jews and focus on the idea of "important" recruits-Jewish, Gentile, whatever. What kinds of people in the Roman Empire would qualify as "important" recruits? How would you recruit them? What would you ask of them? What would they get in return? Mundane, even Machiavellian, as these questions sound, answering them will show how deeply the idea of interethnic harmony was embedded in the logistics of Paul's mission, and how conducive his environment was to the success of that mission. And in this light it will be clear why he wound up preaching not just interethnic tolerance or even amity, but interethnic brotherhood, interethnic love love.

Flying Business Cla.s.s.

In ancient times, as now, one prerequisite for setting up a franchising operation was finding people to run the franchises. Not just anyone would do. Though Christianity is famous for welcoming the poor and powerless into its congregations, to actually run run the congregations Paul needed people of higher social position. For one thing, these people needed to provide a meeting place. Though historians speak of early "churches" in various cities, there were no buildings dedicated to Christian worship. Borrowed homes and meeting halls were the initial infrastructure. Judging by the book of Acts, Paul's founding of Christian congregations depended heavily on, as the scholar Wayne Meeks has put it, "the patronage of officials and well-to-do householders." the congregations Paul needed people of higher social position. For one thing, these people needed to provide a meeting place. Though historians speak of early "churches" in various cities, there were no buildings dedicated to Christian worship. Borrowed homes and meeting halls were the initial infrastructure. Judging by the book of Acts, Paul's founding of Christian congregations depended heavily on, as the scholar Wayne Meeks has put it, "the patronage of officials and well-to-do householders." 29 29 The book of Acts recounts a telling episode from Paul's ministry in Philippi, a city in the Roman colony of Macedonia. Paul and his companions start speaking with women gathered at a river outside the city's gates. Acts reports that "a certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of G.o.d [that is, a Jew] was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul." 30 30 Lydia-the first known European convert to what would later be called Christianity-began her service to the church by recruiting her "household," which almost certainly included not just her family, but servants and maybe slaves. Lydia-the first known European convert to what would later be called Christianity-began her service to the church by recruiting her "household," which almost certainly included not just her family, but servants and maybe slaves. 31 31 And her service didn't end there. The author of Acts writes, "When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.' And she prevailed upon us." Then, apparently, they prevailed upon her; Lydia's home became the meeting place of the local Christian congregation. And her service didn't end there. The author of Acts writes, "When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.' And she prevailed upon us." Then, apparently, they prevailed upon her; Lydia's home became the meeting place of the local Christian congregation. 32 32 To find people like Lydia, Paul had to move in what were, by the standards of the day, elite circles. The "purple cloth" Lydia sold was a pricey fabric, made with a rare dye. Her clientele was wealthy, and she had the resources to have traveled to Macedonia from her home in Asia Minor. She was the ancient equivalent of someone who today makes a transatlantic or trans.p.a.cific flight in business cla.s.s.

From Paul's point of view, the advantage of preaching to business cla.s.s went beyond the fact that people who fly business cla.s.s have resources. There's also the fact that people who fly, fly-that is, they're in motion. To judge by the book of Acts, many of Paul's early Christian a.s.sociates were, like him, travelers. 33 33 As Meeks has noted, "much of the mission" of establishing and sustaining Christian congregations "was carried out by people who were traveling for other reasons." As Meeks has noted, "much of the mission" of establishing and sustaining Christian congregations "was carried out by people who were traveling for other reasons." 34 34 There were at least two ways that bodies in motion could be harnessed. First, in an age when there was no public postal service, they could carry letters to distant churches. 35 35 Second, they might even be able to found distant congregations. Second, they might even be able to found distant congregations.

Consider Aquila and Priscilla, husband and wife. According to Acts, when Paul went from Athens to Corinth and first encountered them, they had moved to Corinth from Rome. Among the things they had in common with Paul was their vocation. "Because he was of the same trade," reports Acts, "he stayed with them, and they worked together." Aquila and Priscilla then became two of his key missionaries, moving to Ephesus and founding a church in their home. 36 36 The trade Paul shared with them was, depending on how you interpret a Greek word, either tentmaking or leatherworking. Either vocation would have allowed Paul to mix with the commercial cla.s.s, but tentmaking was an especially opportune profession. In those days tents weren't recreational. They were what the more affluent travelers used to avoid staying in inns, which were p.r.o.ne to vermin and vice. 37 37 Tents were, in short, standard equipment for those who flew business cla.s.s. Indeed, tents Tents were, in short, standard equipment for those who flew business cla.s.s. Indeed, tents were were, in a sense, business cla.s.s. By making and selling tents, Paul would have been mingling with exactly the kind of people he needed to mingle with.

These people, like business-cla.s.s fliers today, were cosmopolitan. They came from varying ethnicities, they dealt with people of varying ethnicities, and their financial interest thus dictated some tolerance of ethnic difference, some extension of amity across ethnic bounds. These cosmopolitan values were built into the logic of long-distance commerce in the multinational Roman Empire, just as they are built into the logic of long-distance commerce in an age of globalization. When economics draws people of different ethnicities and cultures into non-zero-sum relationships, interethnic and intercultural tolerance is likely to ensue. In that sense, a nontrivial part of Paul's work had been done for him by the tenor of the times.

Still, there's a difference between interethnic tolerance, even amity, and interethnic brotherhood. To fully explain the early Christian emphasis on brotherly love, we need to explore Paul's business model more deeply.

Fringe Benefits.

When people open a local franchise of something-a McDonald's, a Pizza Hut-they do so because they expect to get something in return. What did people get in return for making their homes Christian franchises? In some cases, no doubt, it was mainly the benefit of the gospel; Lydia presumably found Paul's initial teachings gratifying, and what additional benefits she got from hosting a church-social, economic, whatever-we'll never know. But as the franchising continued and the church expanded to more and more cities, it offered new benefits to church leaders.

In particular: reliable lodging. Tents were adequate for overnight stays on the road, but when you reached the big city, nicer accommodations were desirable-especially if you planned to stay awhile and do business. Paul's letters to Christian congregations often include requests that they extend hospitality to traveling church leaders. 38 38 Such privileges, as one scholar writes, would increasingly be "extended to the whole household of faith, who are accepted on trust, though complete strangers." This was a revolution of sorts, since "security and hospitality when traveling had traditionally been the privilege of the powerful." Such privileges, as one scholar writes, would increasingly be "extended to the whole household of faith, who are accepted on trust, though complete strangers." This was a revolution of sorts, since "security and hospitality when traveling had traditionally been the privilege of the powerful." 39 39 The Roman Empire had made distant travel easier than at any time in history, and Christianity exploited this fact. It was, among other things, the Holiday Inn of its day. The Roman Empire had made distant travel easier than at any time in history, and Christianity exploited this fact. It was, among other things, the Holiday Inn of its day.

But there was at least one big difference. The proprietor of a Holiday Inn isn't inviting lodgers into his or her home. Besides, their credit card numbers are on record in the event that they should turn out to be bad apples. Ancients who hosted travelers they didn't know personally were being asked to take a bigger risk. And they were more likely to make the effort if they could believe that the lodger was no mere guest but rather a spiritual sibling, a "brother."

Once a traveler in the Roman Empire arrived in a city, there was a problem: information and orientation were vitally needed, yet the Internet didn't exist. The net to plug into was other people. But where to find people willing to provide you with valuable information, show you around town, help you make contact with other people in your profession or with possible clients? Well, how about a congregation full of "siblings"-all of whom are more likely to lend a hand if they indeed consider you as such. Paul wrote to the Romans, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you." 40 40 Cenchreae was a seaport near Corinth. Paul was here asking Romans to extend familial love to a Greek, and he was doing so in the process of knitting his imperial organization together. As the scholar Wayne McCready has noted, the early Christian language of familial intimacy not only "underscored the internal cohesion that distinguished the a.s.semblies of early Christians" but also "was applied as a universal principle which transcended local and geographic references and united numerous local communities into a collective whole." 41 41 Paul's international church built on existing cosmopolitan values of interethnic tolerance and amity, but in offering its international networking services to people of means, it went beyond those values; a kind of interethnic love was the core value that held the system together. Paul's international church built on existing cosmopolitan values of interethnic tolerance and amity, but in offering its international networking services to people of means, it went beyond those values; a kind of interethnic love was the core value that held the system together.

It may sound cynical to explain the growth of a religion, especially a religion of love love, in cra.s.s commercial terms, as though religions were mere networking services. But such practical functions play some role in the power of religion even today. The Mormon church, whose growth rate has been compared to that of early Christianity, 42 42 is a smooth conduit of commercial contact. And in the ancient world, religious bonds played a much bigger role in commerce. Indeed, ancient Greek and Roman a.s.sociations that were essentially vocational-a.s.sociations of shippers or of artisans or whatever-seem to have never been wholly secular. As the scholar S. G. Wilson has written, "an element of religious devotion" was "a ubiquitous feature of ancient a.s.sociations, as indeed of ancient life in general." is a smooth conduit of commercial contact. And in the ancient world, religious bonds played a much bigger role in commerce. Indeed, ancient Greek and Roman a.s.sociations that were essentially vocational-a.s.sociations of shippers or of artisans or whatever-seem to have never been wholly secular. As the scholar S. G. Wilson has written, "an element of religious devotion" was "a ubiquitous feature of ancient a.s.sociations, as indeed of ancient life in general." 43 43 The trust in transaction on which business depends-a trust that today often rests on elaborate laws and their reliable enforcement-rested in ancient times partly on laws but largely on faith in the integrity of individual people. And religious fellowship was one of the great foundations of such faith. The trust in transaction on which business depends-a trust that today often rests on elaborate laws and their reliable enforcement-rested in ancient times partly on laws but largely on faith in the integrity of individual people. And religious fellowship was one of the great foundations of such faith.

Empire as Opportunity.

This chapter's pragmatic rendering of Paul's emphasis on love is somewhat speculative. We don't know enough about the early church to explain its growth with complete confidence. What we can say with much confidence, though, is that Paul's accomplishment was some combination of opportune conditions and effective exploitation of them.

The Roman Empire was, among other things, a huge commercial opportunity. By linking once remote cities via solid roads, and bringing them under a uniform legal code, it opened up new vistas for the ambitious merchant, and in Paul's day merchants were starting to get the picture. This is what made Paul's mammoth ambitions for the church conceivable-not just the vastness of the Roman platform, but the fact that it had already created commercial currents he could harness. Paul saw an unprecedented entrepreneurial opportunity: the possibility of building a religious organization of imperial proportions.

Yet there must have been something challenging about his goal, because, though the Roman Empire had existed for nearly a century, no one else had achieved it. Yes, other religions flourished, especially Greek and Roman mystery religions, but they seem to have lacked centralized leadership and uniform doctrine. Dionysian cults spread from city to city (as you would expect of a religion that involved drinking large amounts of wine) but, as one scholar has observed, "once established, local cults remained largely autonomous and could take quite divergent forms from one city to another." 44 44 Apparently there were challenges facing anyone who aimed to found congregations in various cities and keep them on the same page. Apparently there were challenges facing anyone who aimed to found congregations in various cities and keep them on the same page.

We'll never know for sure what Paul's secret was, but some of the best candidates are the ones I've stressed. First, he used the information technology of the day-hand-carried letters-with unusual adroitness to keep distant congregations intact. This meant hammering home the theme of familial love. Second, he extended this sense of brotherhood beyond local congregations and particular ethnicities. This lubricated the provision of hospitality for traveling church leaders and, as time wore on, for Christians more broadly. In this and other ways, brotherly love helped keep the church unified-or at least more unified than other multicity religions, and unified enough to stay strong over the long haul.

A general principle here is that in a multiethnic polity like the Roman Empire, anyone who wants to start a vast organization should be ethnically inclusive, lest valuable resources go unused and potential recruits go unrecruited. The synagogues scattered across the Roman Empire were one example of a valuable resource. The Christian church in Rome was another example. Paul hadn't founded the church in Rome, and there presumably were doctrinal differences between these Latin Christians and the Christians in Greece and Asia Minor whom Paul had cultivated. Had Paul chosen to, he could have harped on these differences to the point of schism. But he wanted to use the resources of the Roman church as he prepared for missions to Spain and elsewhere, and that may help explain the warmth of his letter to the Romans: "To all G.o.d's beloved in Rome.... I thank my G.o.d through Jesus Christ for all of you.... I remember you always in my prayers.... I am longing to see you." 45 45 Pretty intimate, given that almost all of them were people he'd never met! Yet this was a simple application of the early Christian formula for success. Pretty intimate, given that almost all of them were people he'd never met! Yet this was a simple application of the early Christian formula for success.

How Universal Is Universal?

It may sound implausible that a doctrine of true, pure, boundless love could emerge from the strategic imperatives of entrepreneurship, even when the enterprise is a religion. And, actually, it is is implausible. What emerged with early Christianity isn't really, strictly speaking, a G.o.d of implausible. What emerged with early Christianity isn't really, strictly speaking, a G.o.d of universal universal love. The core appeal of the early church, remember, was that "brotherly love" was a form of familial love. And familial love is by definition discerning-it is directed inwardly, not outwardly; toward kin, not toward everyone. love. The core appeal of the early church, remember, was that "brotherly love" was a form of familial love. And familial love is by definition discerning-it is directed inwardly, not outwardly; toward kin, not toward everyone.

This is the kind of love Paul usually preaches-love directed first and foremost toward other Christians. "Love one another with mutual affection," he tells the Romans. "Through love become slaves to one another," he instructs members of the Galatian congregation. He reminds the Thessalonians that they "have been taught by G.o.d to love one another; and indeed you do love all the brothers [followers of Jesus] throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, beloved, to do so more and more." 46 46 This isn't to say that Paul's preachings offer no foundation for truly universal love. He often exhorts Christians to extend generosity and hospitality to the unconverted, and he occasionally goes further. He tells the Thessalonians, "And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all." Still, he isn't in the habit of putting Christians and non-Christians on quite quite the same plane. He tells the Galatians: "Let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith." the same plane. He tells the Galatians: "Let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith." 47 47 Paul is treading a fine line-occasionally exhorting a kind of "love" for non-Christians yet suggesting that it be a less powerful motivator for generosity than the "brotherly love" he relentlessly champions among Christians. This may sound paradoxical, but treading this line was a key to Christianity's early success.

On the one hand, Christianity made a name for itself by extending generosity to non-Christians. Some of those it befriended joined the church, others no doubt spoke highly of it thereafter, and various observers were impressed by the church's sympathy for the unfortunate.

Yet Christianity couldn't extend generosity to non-Christians infinitely. After all, it was an organization that wanted to grow, and central among its enticements was that joining it brought the benefits of an extended family, including material a.s.sistance in times of need. If anyone could get these things forever without joining, how many people would join? Besides, how can a small group of people afford to give endlessly to all who call if many of these recipients will never contribute anything in return? The key to Christianity's growth was to be nice to outsiders, but not endlessly nice-unless, of course, they became insiders, after which they were expected to give and not just get.

This discerning nature of Christian love is reflected more than a century after Paul in the words of the Christian theologian Tertullian: "What marks us in the eyes of our enemies is our loving-kindness: 'Only look,' they say, 'look how they love one another!'" 48 48 One another, not everyone. One another, not everyone.

This discernment is also reflected in a famous utterance of Jesus in the book of Matthew. Jesus is telling his followers that they should treat even the lowliest as if they were Jesus himself, so that on Judgment Day he can say to them: "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." This seeming call for boundless compa.s.sion is followed by a rarely noted qualifier. After Jesus's followers ask in puzzlement, "When was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?" Jesus answers: "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of these who are members of my family [sometimes translated as "these my brothers"], you did it to me." 49 49 Brothers? Family? In common early-Christian usage, that would have meant other Christians. Brothers? Family? In common early-Christian usage, that would have meant other Christians.

Of course, if Paul is the one who pioneered that usage, then maybe terms like "brothers" had a different, more truly universal, connotation back when Jesus spoke. But the book of Matthew wasn't written until after Paul's time, so its language should be interpreted in that light. And in that light, this pa.s.sage is so consistent with Paul's instrumental use of the idea of brotherly love as to suggest that maybe these weren't the words of Jesus but rather were put in his mouth to justify a strategy that, by the time Matthew was written, had proved its value. (They don't appear in the earliest gospel, Mark, or in the possibly early, hypothetically reconstructed Q source-only in Matthew.) Though membership in one of Paul's churches allowed you to enjoy brotherly love, it didn't guarantee that privilege for life. Once a brother, you would be monitored, and extreme self-indulgence could lead to expulsion. The same letter to the Corinthians that bears Paul's famous ode to love contains this pa.s.sage: "I am writing to you not to a.s.sociate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is s.e.xually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one.... Drive out the wicked person from among you." 50 50 Paul's church had generous criteria for joining the brotherhood but strict grounds for expulsion. Paul's church had generous criteria for joining the brotherhood but strict grounds for expulsion.

This membership policy helps explain how Christianity could afford to accept members from all social cla.s.ses, including the indigent. So long as they didn't exploit generosity and succ.u.mb to vice, they could be rendered productive. Indeed, Christian churches seem to have been tools of social mobility, giving education to aspiring students. A second-century Christian remarked, "Not only do the rich among us pursue our philosophy, but the poor enjoy instruction for free.... We admit all who desire to hear." 51 51 It was a solid formula: reach out to all, and hang on to the honest and earnest. But an implication of this formula was to keep "universal love" from being truly "universal." Love was extended beyond the brotherhood of Christians tentatively and conditionally; the fullest form of love would be denied to those who didn't join the brotherhood and to those who joined but didn't keep earning their membership. The result was to make the early church organically cohesive. As Paul put it, "we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually we are members one of another." 52 52 The meaning of the Hebrew Bible's injunction to love your neighbor as yourself had always depended on the definition of "neighbor." Paul did change that definition, but he didn't give it infinite compa.s.s. A "neighbor" wasn't just any any "Jew or Greek." As Peter Brown has written of the Roman Empire in the third century, "The teaching of the church defined for the Christian who was "Jew or Greek." As Peter Brown has written of the Roman Empire in the third century, "The teaching of the church defined for the Christian who was not not his neighbor: the neighbor of the Christian was his neighbor: the neighbor of the Christian was not not necessarily his kinsman, necessarily his kinsman, not not his fellow dweller in a his fellow dweller in a quartier quartier, not not his compatriot or his fellow towns-man; his neighbor was his fellow Christian." his compatriot or his fellow towns-man; his neighbor was his fellow Christian." 53 53 Brothers, Yes, but Enemies?

There is one kind of Christian love that doesn't fit into this formula, and so can't be explained in terms of intracongregational or inter-congregational bonding. In two of the gospels Jesus says, "Love your enemies." 54 54 What is the practical logic behind What is the practical logic behind that that kind of love? And if there is a practical logic behind it, why isn't the logic sensed by Paul, who never utters these words? kind of love? And if there is a practical logic behind it, why isn't the logic sensed by Paul, who never utters these words?

Actually, though Paul doesn't say "Love your enemies," he comes pretty close. So close, in fact, as to suggest that he did did sense the logic behind it-that, in fact, he may be the one who injected the idea into Christian literature. Only later, perhaps, was it attributed to Jesus, if in fuller and richer form. sense the logic behind it-that, in fact, he may be the one who injected the idea into Christian literature. Only later, perhaps, was it attributed to Jesus, if in fuller and richer form.

The "Love your enemy" injunction, as we've seen, appears in both Matthew and Luke. In the Matthew version, Jesus says, "I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." In the letter to the Romans, written more than a decade before Matthew or Luke was written, Paul says, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them." And if Paul doesn't quite say to love love your enemies, he does add "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink." Paul also says, in that same pa.s.sage, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil... never avenge yourselves." Similarly, Jesus, just before advising people to love their enemies, says, "Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." your enemies, he does add "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink." Paul also says, in that same pa.s.sage, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil... never avenge yourselves." Similarly, Jesus, just before advising people to love their enemies, says, "Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." 55 55 Of course, it's not surprising that Paul would favor the same cl.u.s.ter of ideas as Jesus, given that he's something of a Jesus aficionado. But if Paul is repeating the words of Jesus, why doesn't he b.u.t.tress their authority by saying so? He is, after all, talking to a bunch of Jesus worshippers. And why doesn't he repeat the pithiest and most dramatic version of Jesus's sayings on this subject: "Love your enemy"?

It's possible that Paul just isn't very conversant with the sayings of Jesus-but not probable. After all, by Paul's account he had spent two weeks in Jerusalem lodging with the apostle Peter, and he also met Jesus's brother, James. 56 56 For that matter, he spent pretty much all of his time in the circles where Jesus's words circulated. Surely he would have caught wind of one of the most striking things Jesus ever said-if, that is, Jesus actually said it. For that matter, he spent pretty much all of his time in the circles where Jesus's words circulated. Surely he would have caught wind of one of the most striking things Jesus ever said-if, that is, Jesus actually said it.

The same question arises with the doctrine of brotherly love. By the time the book of John quotes Jesus telling his followers, "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another," this actually wasn't wasn't a new commandment; a new commandment; 57 57 Paul had started issuing that injunction to Jesus's followers decades earlier. Similarly, before the other three gospels depicted Jesus telling people to fulfill the Jewish Law by loving your neighbor as yourself, Paul had told the Galatians that "the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" And here, too, he makes no mention of Jesus having said much the same thing. Paul had started issuing that injunction to Jesus's followers decades earlier. Similarly, before the other three gospels depicted Jesus telling people to fulfill the Jewish Law by loving your neighbor as yourself, Paul had told the Galatians that "the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" And here, too, he makes no mention of Jesus having said much the same thing. 58 58 We've seen the pragmatic value of brotherly love and so seen how Paul could have happened on this precept without inspiration from Jesus. But what about "Love your enemy"? If Jesus didn't really say that, then where on earth did Paul get the idea?

Maybe from facts on the ground-facts that gave Paul reason to see the wisdom of pa.s.sive perseverance in the face of enmity. Paul was part of a religious minority that was widely resented and that, if it didn't demonstrate restraint amid provocation, could be persecuted to the point of extinction. 59 59 In that sense his situation was quite like that of Philo, another adherent of a suspect faith in the Roman Empire of the first century. Philo, as we've seen, adapted by urging fellow Jews not to antagonize the pagan majority-and by working to find a doctrine of interfaith tolerance in the Jewish scripture. In that sense his situation was quite like that of Philo, another adherent of a suspect faith in the Roman Empire of the first century. Philo, as we've seen, adapted by urging fellow Jews not to antagonize the pagan majority-and by working to find a doctrine of interfaith tolerance in the Jewish scripture.

Certainly Paul seems to have known that an onslaught of kindness can frustrate the enemy by denying him what he most wants: a rationale for hatred, a pretext for attack. After urging Christians to give food and drink to their enemies, he adds, "for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." 60 60 Actually, Paul wasn't the first to figure out that befriending an enemy can be a potent counterattack. His "burning coals" line comes from Proverbs, where it is preceded by this advice: "If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink." 61 61 Paul, in injecting the doctrine of kindness toward enemies into Christianity, wasn't just being wise; he was being wise with the guidance of the Hebrew wisdom literature. Paul, in injecting the doctrine of kindness toward enemies into Christianity, wasn't just being wise; he was being wise with the guidance of the Hebrew wisdom literature.

The Growth of G.o.d (Cont'd.).

We last encountered the wisdom literature in a theological context. In Philo's theology-and, I suggested in chapter 9, in a plausible modern theology-the acc.u.mulation of human wisdom is a manifestation of divine purpose. The direction of history, as set by basic dynamics of cultural evolution, pragmatically pushes people toward useful doctrines that, wondrously enough, contain elements of moral truth. As people find themselves in more and more non-zero-sum situations with more and more people at greater geographic and cultural remove, the intelligent pursuit of self-interest dictates acknowledging the interests, hence the humanity, of a growing number of other human beings.

Or, to put this bit of theology in its most ambitious form, as phrased in chapter 7: Maybe the growth of "G.o.d" signifies the existence of G.o.d. That is: if history naturally pushes people toward moral improvement, toward moral truth, and their G.o.d, as they conceive their G.o.d, grows accordingly, becoming morally richer, then maybe this growth is evidence of some higher purpose, and maybe-conceivably-the source of that purpose is worthy of the name divinity.

The main line of the growth of "G.o.d" traced in this chapter has been the evolution of a doctrine of interethnic love. On close examination, it has turned out to be both less original than it may at first seem and less impressive-less truly universal. Still, it's not nothing. The idea that all people, regardless of race or nationality, are equal candidates for G.o.d's love (so long as they don't squander the opportunity!) is a form of ethnic egalitarianism. And ethnic egalitarianism is probably closer to moral truth than the alternatives.

So, for theological purposes, it would be nice to know: Was this morally progressive doctrine indeed a highly likely outcome of the historical process? Or was it a fluke, a product of one man's eccentric interpretation of another man's eccentric prophetic career? If the former-if it is a natural outgrowth of history-then it is more likely that this "growth of G.o.d" signifies the existence of G.o.d, or at least the existence of something you might call divine, however unlike ancient conceptions of G.o.d.

These are questions I've been trying to illuminate by treating Paul one-dimensionally-as just another savvy and ambitious man who happened to be in the religion business. To the extent that any such man was likely to have wound up preaching interethnic tolerance, even love, then these doctrines can be seen as outgrowths of the social, political, and economic context of the day. And to the extent that this context is in turn an expression of history's natural drift toward expanded social organization, these doctrines can be seen as an expression of history itself.

Tentatively, we can say that this seems to be the case. As social organization expanded, as Roman roads crossed the bounds of more and more nations, economic interests drew people into a cosmopolitan, multiethnic world, and the "G.o.d of Love" evolved in reflection of that fact. If Paul's organizational aspirations were indeed to be realized on the scale of the Roman Empire, then the empire's ethnic diversity would have to be accommodated by the values of his organization.

But questions remain. For example: Were Were Paul's organizational aspirations likely to be realized on the scale of the Roman Empire? Or could Paul's version of Christianity easily have fallen by the wayside amid the tough compet.i.tion among religions in that empire? And, if Pauline Christianity had indeed perished as some other religion prevailed, what properties would the winning religion have possessed? Such questions help us answer the bigger question of whether the doctrine of transethnic brotherly love was "in the cards"-likely, all along, to flourish. We'll never settle the question definitively; there are too many imponderables. But the next chapter will bring us closer to an answer. Paul's organizational aspirations likely to be realized on the scale of the Roman Empire? Or could Paul's version of Christianity easily have fallen by the wayside amid the tough compet.i.tion among religions in that empire? And, if Pauline Christianity had indeed perished as some other religion prevailed, what properties would the winning religion have possessed? Such questions help us answer the bigger question of whether the doctrine of transethnic brotherly love was "in the cards"-likely, all along, to flourish. We'll never settle the question definitively; there are too many imponderables. But the next chapter will bring us closer to an answer.

Chapter Twelve.

Survival of the Fittest Christianity.

It didn't take Christians long to start annoying people. As early as 64 CE, before all the books of the New Testament had been written, the emperor Nero was having followers of Jesus smeared with pitch, put on crosses, and set on fire. 1 1 Ever the thrifty persecutor, Nero (according to the Roman historian Tacitus) used the flaming bodies "to serve as lights when daylight failed." Ever the thrifty persecutor, Nero (according to the Roman historian Tacitus) used the flaming bodies "to serve as lights when daylight failed." 2 2 The emperor's immediate aim was to make Christians scapegoats, to blame them for a devastating fire that some people were blaming on him. But there was a less ephemeral source of tension between Christians and Roman rulers. Like Jews, Christians didn't fit the Roman model of religion. The emperor's immediate aim was to make Christians scapegoats, to blame them for a devastating fire that some people were blaming on him. But there was a less ephemeral source of tension between Christians and Roman rulers. Like Jews, Christians didn't fit the Roman model of religion.

The Roman government let people worship whatever G.o.ds they chose so long as they also paid homage to the official G.o.ds of the empire. Christians refused to worship state G.o.ds, and they couldn't honestly grant legitimacy to the various other G.o.ds people worshipped, either. In fact, they actively challenged that legitimacy, because Christians weren't just monotheists; they were monotheists p.r.o.ne to proselytizing.

The proselytizing outweighed the persecution, and Christianity grew until, in 312, it crossed its famous threshold: Emperor Constantine, inspired by a vision, decided to fight a crucial battle under the symbol of the cross. The ensuing victory elevated Jesus in his esteem and helped usher in an era of official tolerance for Christianity. 3 3 By the end of the fourth century, Christianity was the official religion of the empire, and pagan religions were banned. By the end of the fourth century, Christianity was the official religion of the empire, and pagan religions were banned.

Constantine's conversion is a touchstone in the debate over the roles of chance and necessity in history. Some see it as a tribute to contingency: without Constantine's change of heart, Christianity might never have displaced paganism as the religion of Europe, and all of history might have been different. Others say Christianity, though far from a majority religion, had already achieved critical ma.s.s and would have prevailed in any event.

Suppose Christianity's triumph within the Roman Empire was indeed Constantine-dependent-as, for all we know, it was. And suppose Constantine had lost that battle, or hadn't happened to fight it under the cross, and Christianity had fallen by the wayside. Then what would have become of the idea of interethnic brotherly love, an idea that by then had grown so closely a.s.sociated with Christianity?

It's a theologically important question. In chapter 9, while appraising Philo's ancient yet in some ways modern theology, we came across the idea of the Logos-a divine driver of unfolding cosmic purpose that, in the process, serves as a kind of engine of moral growth. If Paul's doctrine of interethnic amity might have perished but for a single military victory, then how powerful could that engine really be? If the Logos is real, shouldn't moral enlightenment be driven by something ultimately stronger than the vagaries of history? But what evidence is there of such power? Why should we think that, regardless of Constantine's fate, interethnic amity had a good chance of carrying the day in the Roman Empire's battle among religious values?

An Open Platform.

For one thing, because the creation of the Roman Empire had made interethnic amity a more valuable commodity than it was before. We saw glimpses of this in the previous chapter, in dissecting Paul's strategy for building an international church. To get a clearer sense for the value added by empire, let's take a look at the Greek island of Delos in the second century BCE, the century before the Roman Empire was born.

One G.o.d worshipped on that island was Heracles-Melkart (a fusion of the Tyrian G.o.d Melkart and the divine Greek figure Heracles, aka Hercules). Heracles-Melkart had a big following among merchants and shippers hailing from the city of Tyre. Indeed, the official name of the "religious" organization devoted to his worship was the Heraclesiastai of Tyre Merchants and Shippers. 4 4 Merchants and shippers who belonged to this cult made sacrifices to Heracles-Melkart in hopes of winning his favor. But it wasn't really Heracles-Melkart who did the favors. Belonging to his cult meant picking up useful business information from other merchants and shippers, and building fruitful bonds with them; the cult was, from a vocational point of view, both a database and a network of useful contacts. If you were a merchant or shipper from Tyre on the island of Delos, you would naturally join the cult, because membership was valuable.

Crucially important, for purposes of this a.n.a.lysis, is that your joining would make membership even more valuable, because by joining you slightly enlarged the stock of data and the number of potentially useful contacts. In general, the more members of the cult, the more valuable membership was. the more members of the cult, the more valuable membership was.

This phenomenon is known by economists as "positive network externalities"-the more units of something there are, the more valuable each unit is. Of course, economists don't generally apply the idea to religion. They apply it to things like software. The cla.s.sic example is Microsoft Windows. Once millions of copies of Windows were in use, lots of software was being made for Windows, so Windows was more valuable to own than it would have been if only thousands of copies were in use. Every time someone "joined" the network by buying a computer with Windows, they increased the value of membership by increasing the incentive to create software for the Windows platform.

The idea of network externalities can be applied to most things that in some sense const.i.tute a network, and religions certainly do. Whenever positive network externalities exist, a common principle obtains: to fully exploit the externalities, organizations should avoid arbitrary barriers to membership. Which brings us back to Delos.

Years after the worshippers of Heracles-Melkart built a temple to him on Delos, another group built a temple to the sea G.o.d Poseidon on Delos. These men hailed from the city of Berytos-Beirut-and were called the Poseidoniastai of Berytos Merchants, Shippers, and Warehous.e.m.e.n. 5 5 Same vocational composition as the Tyrian Heraclesiastai (give or take some Warehous.e.m.e.n), but they wound up at a different temple worshipping a different G.o.d. Same vocational composition as the Tyrian Heraclesiastai (give or take some Warehous.e.m.e.n), but they wound up at a different temple worshipping a different G.o.d.

Mightn't it have benefited the two groups to merge? Double the resources, double the database? And wouldn't that have made business travel easier, since you could then travel among Delos, Tyre, and Beirut with guaranteed hospitality? In other words: wouldn't membership in the merged religion have been more valuable, more attractive, than membership in either of the religions alone, thanks to the logic of network externalities?

Of course, merging groups from Tyre and Beirut was hard, because there was a big cultural divide between those cities. Still, it was an arbitrary arbitrary divide; in strictly commercial terms, members of the two groups could have profited (on balance) from friendly interaction with one another. In other words, these two cults, by letting culture divide them, were leaving potential synergy untapped, network externalities unrealized. In theory, this failure would leave them vulnerable to compet.i.tion from a religion that was open to people from Tyre and Beirut alike. divide; in strictly commercial terms, members of the two groups could have profited (on balance) from friendly interaction with one another. In other words, these two cults, by letting culture divide them, were leaving potential synergy untapped, network externalities unrealized. In theory, this failure would leave them vulnerable to compet.i.tion from a religion that was open to people from Tyre and Beirut alike.

Maybe this sort of failure wasn't very consequential back in the second century BCE. Maybe merchants from Tyre and merchants from Beirut moved in largely separate commercial worlds, so there wasn't much potential synergy among them anyway. But later, as Rome subjugated nation after nation, that would change. With the "Pax Romana"-the Roman Peace-of the first two centuries CE, a huge arena of commerce opened up, with lots of potential for business among people of different cities, different nations, different ethnicities. An inclusive group could harness the expansive energy of network externalities better than ethnically or nationally specific groups.

Suppose, for example, that there were two sects within a religion called Christianity. Suppose that in both cases members profited from their contacts with other members of the sect. But suppose that one sect welcomed people of all nationalities and the other one made it hard for people of most nationalities to join. Wouldn't the former have more potential network externalities? Wouldn't it be likely to grow faster than the latter? And, as its size exceeded that of its rival by a growing margin, wouldn't its compet.i.tive advantage get only bigger, thanks to the logic of network externalities? In other words, wouldn't the Christianity of Paul do better than a hypothetical alternative Christianity whose doctrines didn't foster interethnic bonding?

Actually, this is no mere thought experiment. There were several sects within early Christianity-several versions of the Jesus movement that in principle could have won the intramural compet.i.tion and become "mainstream" Christianity, as Paul's version finally did. And at least one of them fit the description of this hypothetical alternative.

Jews for Jesus.

Remember the followers of Jesus whom Paul wished would "castrate themselves" because their insistence on circ.u.mcision would discourage non-Jews from joining the Jesus movement? It's unlikely that they did so literally, and apparently they didn't do so metaphorically, either; their spiritual heirs were still around two centuries later. 6 6 Fourth-century doc.u.ments refer to a group called the Ebionites, who insisted that Jesus worshippers be thoroughly Jewish. Gentiles were eligible for salvation, but only after conversion to Judaism, which meant abiding by the letter of the Jewish Law in ritual matters, ranging from kosher dining to circ.u.mcision. Fourth-century doc.u.ments refer to a group called the Ebionites, who insisted that Jesus worshippers be thoroughly Jewish. Gentiles were eligible for salvation, but only after conversion to Judaism, which meant abiding by the letter of the Jewish Law in ritual matters, ranging from kosher dining to circ.u.mcision.

As Bart Ehrman noted in his book Lost Christianities Lost Christianities, the Ebionites' conception of Jesus was probably closer to Jesus's own view of himself than was the picture that eventually prevailed within Christianity. Jesus was no G.o.d, said the Ebionites, just a messiah. And though he, like some past Israelite kings, was a son of G.o.d, he'd been born like any other human, to a biologically impregnated woman. (In fact, said the Ebionites, Jesus was G.o.d's adopted adopted son, chosen for his exemplary conduct.) son, chosen for his exemplary conduct.) Here the Ebionites were being more faithful to Hebrew scripture than the Christians of today. When the Gospel of Matthew a.s.serts virgin birth, it alludes to the book of Isaiah's prophecy that "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel." 7 7 But in fact the Hebrew word in Isaiah that had been translated as "virgin" in the Septuagint just means "young woman." But in fact the Hebrew word in Isaiah that had been translated as "virgin" in the Septuagint just means "young woman."

Still, in the compet.i.tion among memes, truth isn't the only thing that matters. And the Ebionites, by making it hard for a Gentile to join the Jesus movement, hobbled their version of the movement. 8 8 Ebionite doctrine suppressed network externalities, whereas Paul's version of Christianity seems almost designed to maximize those externalities. And Paul's version won. Ebionite doctrine suppressed network externalities, whereas Paul's version of Christianity seems almost designed to maximize those externalities. And Paul's version won.

The Runner-Up.

The version of Christianity that seems to have finished second in the struggle for the t.i.tle of mainstream Christianity shared these network-externality-maximizing properties. This was a monolatrous kind of Christianity known as Marcionism. Its founder, Marcion, believed that the Hebrew Bible reflected one G.o.d-a wrathful creator G.o.d-and that Jesus had revealed another G.o.d: a loving G.o.d who offered escape from the earthly cesspool devised by the creator G.o.d. And Marcion embraced Paul's doctrine of interethnic "brotherly love."

Indeed, Marcion-who, two centuries before the New Testament started to coalesce, became the first person to collect early Christian writings into an official canon-included many of Paul's letters, as well as one of the four gospels, Luke. 9 9 (Lest the G.o.d of salvation be conflated with the creator G.o.d, Marcion edited Luke; now Jesus referred to G.o.d not as "Lord of Heaven and Earth" but as "Lord of Heaven.") (Lest the G.o.d of salvation be conflated with the creator G.o.d, Marcion edited Luke; now Jesus referred to G.o.d not as "Lord of Heaven and Earth" but as "Lord of Heaven.") 10 10 Marcion's embrace of Paul didn't keep his church from being a rival to what scholars would later call the Pauline church - that is, the version of Christianity that eventually became mainstream and a.s.sembled the New Testament as its canon. Indeed, the rivalry got intense as Marcionite Christianity proved robust. One second-century Pauline Christian noted with alarm that Marcion was spreading his version of the gospel to "many people of every nation." As late as the fifth century, Christian bishops warned travelers to avoid entering a Marcionite church by accident. 11 11 Maybe a bitter battle for dominance of Christianity shouldn't surprise us, given that both sides wielded a doctrine as powerful as brotherly love. Maybe a bitter battle for dominance of Christianity shouldn't surprise us, given that both sides wielded a doctrine as powerful as brotherly love.

There's one feature of Marcionite Christianity that might seem strategically suboptimal: Marcion, unlike Paul, burned all bridges to Judaism. By rejecting the Hebrew Bible and excising Jewish themes from his canon, he made it impossible to do what Paul seems to have done: draw on the infrastructure of Judaism for logistical support and recruits. But by the time Marcion showed up, the "Pauline" church had effectively burned those bridges, too. At the end of the first century Christianity was no longer thought of as a species of Judaism, and blatant anti-Semitism would soon surface within the church.

This emerging tension between Christians and Jews follows the now familiar pattern: tolerance and amity often thrive when the game is seen as non-zero-sum but are less robust when it is seen as zero-sum. In the Roman Empire, anyone who refused to worship the state G.o.ds needed a special exemption, and the best hope for getting one lay in a deep historical heritage -showing that your religious tradition long predated the Roman Empire. Both Christians and Jews could point to the Hebrew scriptures as evidence of their deep roots, but whether both could do so successfully was another question. After all, could there really be more than one rightful heir to the Hebrew tradition?

So Christians, in pressing their claim for an exemption, had to undermine the Jewish claim to legitimacy. They argued that Jews had forsaken their own G.o.d by killing his son. That, explained the church fathe