The Evolution Of God Part 6

Here, in Philo's life, we are again at the nexus between Wisdom and wisdom, between the cosmic Logos, the divine plan unfolding on earth, and the logos in Philo's mind. Philo's logos, by mirroring the cosmic Logos-by stripping itself of the distortions of pa.s.sions, revealing pure reason-manifests the cosmic Logos, furthering the divine plan.

Here we are also at the nexus between Logos as governing principle, as the prime mover of history, and Logos as moral principle. In response to the prompting of the former, Philo helps advance the latter-helps realize the ideals of the Torah as he understood them.

But a piece of the puzzle is still missing. How had the Logos managed to "prompt" Philo? How had it "arranged" for Philo to be in a non-zero-sum situation to begin with? The whole point of the Logos, remember, was to get rid of the need for a hands-on, interventionist G.o.d, the kind of G.o.d who could peer down, pick Philo up, and set him down in some non-zero-sum situation so that by acting wisely he could further G.o.d's plan. The Logos was supposed to be less like a personal G.o.d and more like the laws of nature or of a computer program-something that cranked on automatically, relentlessly. But how could something so rote and general give Philo his opportunity for wise action?

Philo, alas, isn't here to answer that question. But it's not hard to piece together a scenario that answers it and is consistent with his writings. Here's one such scenario, one kind of cosmic algorithm that could explain how Philo wound up in a non-zero-sum situation: Suppose that part of the Logos, as channeled through humans, is the inquisitive, inventive part of the rational mind, the part that has given us an ever growing array of technologies, ranging from the wheel to the s.p.a.ce shuttle, from cuneiform to the World Wide Web. (Logos spermatikos, a phrase used by Philo and earlier Greek philosophers, has as one of its meanings "seed-bearing reason," which yields new insights in a person.) 60 60 Suppose that a consequence of the resultant technological evolution is to put people into non-zero-sum situations with a greater and greater variety of other people, including, increasingly, people of different ethnicities and even people at great distances. So, repeatedly, a different part of the rational mind would be called on-a part that can respond to such situations wisely, thus advancing tolerance. Suppose that a consequence of the resultant technological evolution is to put people into non-zero-sum situations with a greater and greater variety of other people, including, increasingly, people of different ethnicities and even people at great distances. So, repeatedly, a different part of the rational mind would be called on-a part that can respond to such situations wisely, thus advancing tolerance.

The rest, as they say, would be history. Of course, many of these encounters would result in violence and destruction. But to the extent that people responded to growing non-zero-sumness as Philo did-wisely, with enlightened self-interest-tolerance would win out more often than intolerance, respect for the rights of others would on balance advance, and humanity would thus move, if fitfully, toward moral enlightenment. And sometimes the key would be dispa.s.sionate reason, as deployed by Philo when he found common ground with adversarial figures, such as Caligula, notwithstanding his dislike of them.

I'm not suggesting that if Philo himself were asked to sum up the essence of the Logos-logos interface in 250 words, he'd recite the previous paragraph. Still, I am saying that this is one rendering of that interface that makes sense and is broadly compatible both with his worldview and with the observed drift of history. What's more, Philo probably would would sign off on something like the above formulation. In order "that the universe may send forth a harmony like that of a masterpiece of literature," he wrote, the Logos "mediates between the opponents amid their threatenings, and reconciles them by winning ways to peace and concord." sign off on something like the above formulation. In order "that the universe may send forth a harmony like that of a masterpiece of literature," he wrote, the Logos "mediates between the opponents amid their threatenings, and reconciles them by winning ways to peace and concord." 61 61 Or, to put it another way: the wisdom of individual human beings, such as Philo, leads to peace and concord, thus vindicating the larger Wisdom, the divine Wisdom, by realizing its goals. Or, to put it another way: the wisdom of individual human beings, such as Philo, leads to peace and concord, thus vindicating the larger Wisdom, the divine Wisdom, by realizing its goals.

Philo understood that wisdom favors peace and concord not just because peace is preferable to war, but because peace brings the chance of mutual gain through fruitful interaction. And a primary source of this gain is the fact that different nations have different resources, and different people have different skills; they have a complementarity that can be harnessed, so long as they aren't fighting. At one point Philo describes the direction of history (a direct product of the Logos, in his worldview) in a way that puts this complementarity, this form of non-zero-sumness, at its core. Referring to "all created things"-by which he means different animal and plant species, but also different people and different peoples-he writes that G.o.d "has made none of these particular things complete in itself, so that it should have no need at all of another. Thus through the desire to obtain what it needs, it must perforce approach that which can supply its need, and this approach must be mutual and reciprocal. Thus through reciprocity and combination, even as a lyre is formed of unlike notes, G.o.d meant that they should come to fellows.h.i.+p and concord and form a single harmony, and that a universal give and take should govern them, and lead up to the consummation of the whole world." 62 62 Two millennia after Philo wrote, we still haven't gotten to universal brotherhood. Yet, as he antic.i.p.ated, history has brought moral progress and cause for real hope. And if you don't feel hopeful, just go back and read your Hebrew Bible. This may sound strange, given how sober, if not cynical, my reading of biblical scripture has been. And certainly many people react to such sober, cynical readings by losing losing hope. Some people are disappointed to find, for example, that a famous verse in Leviticus, "love your neighbor as yourself," referred only to fellow Israelites, not to people in neighboring nations. Indeed, the disappointment is evident even in the voice of Harry Orlinsky, the pioneering deflator of seemingly buoyant Bible verses who deflated this particular verse. "Alas," he says of Leviticus 19:18, "its author had no one but fellow Israelites in mind." hope. Some people are disappointed to find, for example, that a famous verse in Leviticus, "love your neighbor as yourself," referred only to fellow Israelites, not to people in neighboring nations. Indeed, the disappointment is evident even in the voice of Harry Orlinsky, the pioneering deflator of seemingly buoyant Bible verses who deflated this particular verse. "Alas," he says of Leviticus 19:18, "its author had no one but fellow Israelites in mind." 63 63 But there are two reasons why disappointment is the wrong reaction. But there are two reasons why disappointment is the wrong reaction.

Reasons to Be Cheerful.

First, the injunction to love all Israelites represented real moral progress at the time. Before the tribes of Israel were forged into a single polity-first a confederacy and then a nation-it is safe to say that empathy and affection rarely exceeded the bounds of individual tribes. The expansion of social organization from the tribal to the national level opened up new opportunities for non-zero-sumness, notably intertribal cooperation to fight common enemies; and the doctrine of national, as opposed to merely tribal, brotherhood evolved as a way to help realize these opportunities. In that sense Moses, in mediating G.o.d's utterance of the Torah, with its nationally cohesive effect, was in the service of the Logos. "Love your neighbor as yourself" may not have been meant globally, and so may not represent humankind's all-time moral zenith, but it still represented a moral watershed; it expanded the circle of brotherhood.

The second reason people shouldn't feel disappointed to hear that "Love your neighbor" was originally nationalist is that people do do feel disappointed to hear that "Love your neighbor" was initially nationalist. This widespread sense of disappointment, reflecting the moral universalism of the modern world, is itself proof that there has been progress since biblical times. Harry Orlinsky's "Alas" is cause for cheer. feel disappointed to hear that "Love your neighbor" was initially nationalist. This widespread sense of disappointment, reflecting the moral universalism of the modern world, is itself proof that there has been progress since biblical times. Harry Orlinsky's "Alas" is cause for cheer.

And the progress didn't just begin in modern times. As Orlinsky himself writes, "There can be little doubt that early in the postbiblical period, first among the Jews and later among the Christians also, Leviticus 19:18 became the biblical cornerstone of internationalism, of the concept of world brotherhood and the essential equality of all mankind." 64 64 Of course, if this was really driven by the kind of Logos I've described-the wise response to inexorable technological progress -then it wouldn't be confined to Jews and Christians, since neither wisdom nor technological innovation is their exclusive possession. As the tentacles of technology bound larger and larger groups of people into an interdependent, multiethnic web, you'd expect to find comparable progress well beyond the Middle East. And you do.

The Global Logos.

In the first millennium BCE, as various Hebrew scriptures stressed loving your neighbor, or treating foreigners decently, or hoped for a day when swords would be beaten into plowshares, other cultures were moving in the same direction.

In China, Confucius said the paramount virtue is ren ren-a sensitive concern for others-and summarized this law roughly as Hillel would later crystallize the Torah, saying: "Do not do to others what you would not wish for yourself." 65 65 Confucius also said, "Love your fellow man." Confucius also said, "Love your fellow man." 66 66 As with the parallel biblical injunction, in Leviticus, this love may have been confined to national scope. But a generation later the Chinese philosopher Mozi went further, explicitly advocating love of all humankind. As with the parallel biblical injunction, in Leviticus, this love may have been confined to national scope. But a generation later the Chinese philosopher Mozi went further, explicitly advocating love of all humankind. 67 67 According to Mozi, the supreme Chinese G.o.d, Tian, "desires men to love each other and to benefit each other, and does not wish them to hate or to harm each other." According to Mozi, the supreme Chinese G.o.d, Tian, "desires men to love each other and to benefit each other, and does not wish them to hate or to harm each other." 68 68 And: "There are no great states in the world, and no unimportant states. All are the city-states of Tian." And: "There are no great states in the world, and no unimportant states. All are the city-states of Tian." 69 69 Meanwhile, in India, Buddhist scripture had this to say: Let none cajole or flouthis fellow anywhere;let none wish others harmin dudgeon or in hate.Just as with her own lifea mother s.h.i.+elds from hurther own, her only, child,let all-embracing thoughtsfor all that lives be thine,an all-embracing lovefor all the universein all its heights and depthsand breadth, unstinted love,unmarred by hate within,not rousing enmity. 70 70 Repeatedly, these moral insights-like insights in the biblical wisdom literature-are grounded pragmatically; virtue's benefits to the virtuous are stressed. 71 71 The Buddha says that "the virtuous man is happy in this world." For example: forsaking hatred brings "serenity of mind." The Buddha says that "the virtuous man is happy in this world." For example: forsaking hatred brings "serenity of mind." 72 72 Confucius says, "The wise man is attracted to benevolence ( Confucius says, "The wise man is attracted to benevolence (ren) because he finds it to his advantage." After all, "If the gentleman forsakes benevolence, in what way can he make a name for himself?" 73 73 All told, the first millennium BCE brings a strikingly broad pattern: across the Eurasian landma.s.s, from the Pacific to the Mediterranean, sages argue for expanding the circle of moral concern, for harnessing sympathy and hindering antipathy. And "sages" is indeed the word, for they speak in the spirit of the wisdom literature, in terms of enlightened self-interest: if you want peace, and if you want peace of mind, you would do well to rein in your dark side and push the envelope of benevolence.

None of this is to say that history brings simple, linear progress, that every century people grow less ethnocentric, less vindictive, more tolerant, more peace loving. Many great moral insights of the first millennium BCE were honored largely in the breach, and would be until the present day. A glance at the atrocities of the past century should make that clear. Moreover, it's not clear that our moral record will dramatically improve, that humanity will respond wisely to the vast web of interdependence that const.i.tutes global society. All the Logos does is create situations in which ever larger circles of moral inclusion make rational sense; the rest is up to us, and often we fail. Still, there can be no doubt that, since civilization began, there has been net progress in the moral doctrines on offer. And one burst of progress came in the first millennium BCE.

Why? Why in the first millennium BCE are these insights suddenly finding fertile soil so broadly? What incarnations of the Logos are moving humanity forward?

Certainly this is a millennium of great material change. 74 74 Coins are invented, and appear in China, India, and the Middle East. Coins are invented, and appear in China, India, and the Middle East. 75 75 Commercial roads grow, crossing political bounds. In the course of this millennium, markets, as the historian William McNeill has noted, supplant state-controlled economies. Commercial roads grow, crossing political bounds. In the course of this millennium, markets, as the historian William McNeill has noted, supplant state-controlled economies. 76 76 Cities get accordingly big and vibrant and, in many cases, more ethnically diverse. Cities get accordingly big and vibrant and, in many cases, more ethnically diverse.

All of this brings at least three things.

First, expanded economic engagement meant more non-zero-sum relations.h.i.+ps among people of different ethnicities and even different polities. So more people had a selfish interest in the continued welfare of people who were in one sense or another unlike them. Selfishness may not have dictated loving these people, but it strengthened the logic behind not hating them.

Second, more and more people found themselves in an environment radically unlike the environment natural selection had "designed" people for. Emotions that functioned fairly well in the ancestral environment were now of dubious value. In a hunter-gatherer village, vengeful anger can help people defend their interests, but when you feel it welling up after some driver cuts you off, its main effect is to raise your risk of coronary disease. Of course, there were no cars in ancient India or China or Egypt, but, as laws and police came to replace vengeance as a guarantor of social order, anger and hatred lost some of their utility and became increasingly pointless, if not downright counterproductive, from both the individual's and the society's point of view. Even as early as the second millennium BCE, an Egyptian text of moral instruction had warned that, since "turmoil spreads like fire in hay," you should "control yourself around hot-headed people" and not "provoke them with words.... If you leave them alone, the G.o.ds will answer them." 77 77 Loathing just wasn't what it used to be. Loathing just wasn't what it used to be.

Third, as more people were in contact with more other people than ever, there was more interchange of ideas. And that included ideas about how to handle the first and second changes above. If dampening hatred, extending sympathy, exhibiting benevolence prove to be good self-help advice, then these ideas will spread rapidly through a dense web of minds. Notably, it is amid crowds that, according to Proverbs, Lady Wisdom does her best work. "Wisdom cries out in the street; in the squares she raises her voice. At the busiest corner she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks." As technology pushes and pulls people together, it both creates new problems and propagates the solutions, and often the result is to equate self-help with virtue. "On the heights, beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand.... 'O simple ones, learn prudence.... All the words of my mouth are righteous.'" 78 78 The Journey.

In a sense we've come full circle. We started out several chapters ago seeing Yahweh initially embedded in a polytheistic context and surrounded by mythological figures (Plague and Pestilence, for example). And this seemed like evidence of the "primitive" origins of Israelite religion. Yet in the end, one of the Bible's more obscure mythological figures-Wisdom - is a vital link to a fairly modern and even plausible theology whose broad outlines were envisioned by Philo, and whose core dynamic was exhibited exhibited by Philo in the way he crafted a doctrine of interfaith tolerance. by Philo in the way he crafted a doctrine of interfaith tolerance.

A few decades after Philo's death, the Logos made an appearance in a Greek book that would become world famous. But the role of the Logos would be obscured, because when the book was translated into other European languages, including English, "Logos" would be rendered as "Word." For example: "In the beginning was the Word." The book was the Gospel of John, the last and most mystical of the New Testament's four gospels.

In alternative translation, the book of John begins, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with G.o.d, and the Logos was G.o.d." As the book proceeds, it becomes clear that this Logos has a.s.sumed the form of Jesus Christ: "And the Logos became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth." 79 79 Philo, writing during Jesus's lifetime, had himself referred to the Logos as the son of G.o.d. What influence, if any, his writing had on the Gospel of John is unknown. 80 80 In any event, it is almost certain that the author of John, in using "Logos," had more than the word "word" in mind. Any intellectual in the Graeco-Jewish world of the late first century CE would have encountered the use of "Logos" in philosophical or theological writing. And Philo's work was not an eccentric specimen of this sort of writing; such works as the Wisdom of Solomon also equated the Logos with wisdom, depicting a force of divine origin and enlightening effect. In any event, it is almost certain that the author of John, in using "Logos," had more than the word "word" in mind. Any intellectual in the Graeco-Jewish world of the late first century CE would have encountered the use of "Logos" in philosophical or theological writing. And Philo's work was not an eccentric specimen of this sort of writing; such works as the Wisdom of Solomon also equated the Logos with wisdom, depicting a force of divine origin and enlightening effect. 81 81 So it made perfect sense for the Gospel of John to describe Jesus as "The true light, which enlightens everyone." So it made perfect sense for the Gospel of John to describe Jesus as "The true light, which enlightens everyone." 82 82 Was Jesus really an incarnation of the Logos? He certainly sounds like a good candidate. According to the Bible, he preached generosity, tolerance, even universal love, and that message would seem to be doing the work of the Logos: the expansion of the circle of moral consideration.

But what if what the Bible says about Jesus isn't true? What if Jesus didn't didn't really say all the compa.s.sionate things attributed to him? What if it turns out that one of the few things we can say about Jesus with much confidence is that he was quite different from the Jesus depicted in the Bible? Does that make him less an incarnation of the Logos? And should it sap our faith in the Logos? These questions will be forced on us by the next chapter. really say all the compa.s.sionate things attributed to him? What if it turns out that one of the few things we can say about Jesus with much confidence is that he was quite different from the Jesus depicted in the Bible? Does that make him less an incarnation of the Logos? And should it sap our faith in the Logos? These questions will be forced on us by the next chapter.

III.

THE INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITY.

They stood still, looking sad. Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?" He asked them, "What things?" They replied, "The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before G.o.d and all the people, and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to set Israel free." - Luke 24:1721 - Luke 24:1721Finally, brothers and sisters, farewell. Put things in order, listen to my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace; and the G.o.d of love and peace will be with you. Greet one another with a holy kiss. - Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians (13:4) - Paul's Second Letter to the Corinthians (13:4)

Chapter Ten.

What Did Jesus Do?

Historians of religion have an ironic rule for evaluating the Bible's claims about history: the less sense a claim makes, the more likely it is to be true. That is, the less theological theological sense a claim makes, the more likely it is to be true. After all, if the Bible's authors were going to fabricate things, you'd expect them to fabricate things that coexisted easily with their religious beliefs. When you see them struggling to reconcile some ill-fitting fact with their theology, chances are that the fact is indeed fact-a truth so well known in their circles that there was no way of denying or ignoring it. sense a claim makes, the more likely it is to be true. After all, if the Bible's authors were going to fabricate things, you'd expect them to fabricate things that coexisted easily with their religious beliefs. When you see them struggling to reconcile some ill-fitting fact with their theology, chances are that the fact is indeed fact-a truth so well known in their circles that there was no way of denying or ignoring it.

That's one reason the biblical accounts of King Josiah's zealous devotion to Yahweh, discussed in chapter 6, are credible. Given that Josiah goes on to die ignominiously, and that Israel's fortunes then spiral toward catastrophe, it would have been theologically simpler for the Bible's monotheistic editors to describe Josiah as a rampant polytheist who incurred G.o.d's enduring wrath. His opposition to polytheism is so theologically inconvenient that the best explanation for its inclusion in the Bible is its truth.

This criterion of credibility-call it the rule of theological inconvenience-is one reason biblical historians attach so much credence to the Crucifixion of Jesus. There is no written reference to Jesus being crucified until two decades after his death, but we can be pretty sure the Crucifixion happened, in part because it made so little theological sense. 1 1 That may sound strange. What could make more sense to a Christian than Jesus's dying on the cross? The Crucifixion embodies one of Christianity's central themes, G.o.d's love for humanity. As the iconic Christian verse John 3:16 puts it: "For G.o.d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." And, as powerfully as these words ring now, imagine their impact in the ancient world. Throughout history, G.o.ds had been beings to whom you made sacrifices. Now here was a G.o.d that not only demanded no ritual sacrifices from you but himself made sacrifices-indeed, the ultimate sacrifice-for you. 2 2 All of humanity's sins, including yours, could be wiped off the ledger by G.o.d's self-sacrificing redemption. All of humanity's sins, including yours, could be wiped off the ledger by G.o.d's self-sacrificing redemption.

And this reversal of sacrifice was only Act One of Crucifixion theology. Act Two-the Resurrection of Jesus after his execution and burial-was an equally potent symbol. It ill.u.s.trated both the possibility of eternal life and the fact that anyone of any ethnicity and any social cla.s.s could qualify for it; all they had to do was accept and comprehend the Resurrection of Jesus himself. In full form John 3:16 reads: "For G.o.d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but should have everlasting life." The book of Galatians spelled out this open admissions policy: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." 3 3 Universal salvation was on offer from a deeply compa.s.sionate and giving G.o.d, and it's hard to imagine a more resonant symbol of this fact than the Crucifixion of his son. Universal salvation was on offer from a deeply compa.s.sionate and giving G.o.d, and it's hard to imagine a more resonant symbol of this fact than the Crucifixion of his son.

Why, then, if the Crucifixion fits into Christian theology so logically and powerfully, would scholars say that it pa.s.ses the test of theological inconvenience (or, as they call it, the "criterion of dissimilarity")? Because, however theologically convenient the Crucifixion may seem now, it didn't seem that way back when it happened. For Jesus's followers the Crucifixion was, in addition to emotionally wrenching, a serious rhetorical problem.

After all, Jesus was supposed to be the Messiah. 4 4 ("Messiah" is the meaning of the Greek word that became Jesus's t.i.tle: Christos-or, in English, Christ.) Today Christians understand the Messiah as someone sent from on high who makes the ultimate sacrifice-his life-for humanity, bringing spiritual salvation to the world. But back in Jesus's time, losing your life wasn't part of the Messiah's job description. ("Messiah" is the meaning of the Greek word that became Jesus's t.i.tle: Christos-or, in English, Christ.) Today Christians understand the Messiah as someone sent from on high who makes the ultimate sacrifice-his life-for humanity, bringing spiritual salvation to the world. But back in Jesus's time, losing your life wasn't part of the Messiah's job description.

The word "messiah" came from the Hebrew verb meaning "to apply oil to," to anoint. In the Hebrew Bible, Israel's kings were sometimes called Yahweh's "messiah"-G.o.d's anointed one. 5 5 By the end of the first millennium BCE, as Jesus's birth approached, some Jewish sects saw an "anointed one," a messiah, figuring centrally in their apocalyptic visions of a coming, final battle with G.o.d's enemies. By the end of the first millennium BCE, as Jesus's birth approached, some Jewish sects saw an "anointed one," a messiah, figuring centrally in their apocalyptic visions of a coming, final battle with G.o.d's enemies. 6 6 The most common expectation seems to have been that this messiah would be, like most of the Hebrew Bible's "anointed ones," a king. The most common expectation seems to have been that this messiah would be, like most of the Hebrew Bible's "anointed ones," a king. 7 7 Hence the words that, according to the Gospel of Mark, were inscribed on the cross by Jesus's persecutors: "King of the Jews." And hence their sarcasm as he died: "Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe." Hence the words that, according to the Gospel of Mark, were inscribed on the cross by Jesus's persecutors: "King of the Jews." And hence their sarcasm as he died: "Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe." 8 8 Being a king wasn't a strict prerequisite for being messiah. The Hebrew Bible had occasionally referred to a high priest or even a prophet as divinely anointed. 9 9 This diversity was reflected in apocalyptic thought around the time of Jesus. According to the Dead Sea Scrolls-left behind by a sect that settled near the Dead Sea more than a century before Jesus's birth-the climactic battle between good and evil would be fought under the leaders.h.i.+p of two messianic figures, a priest and a prince. This diversity was reflected in apocalyptic thought around the time of Jesus. According to the Dead Sea Scrolls-left behind by a sect that settled near the Dead Sea more than a century before Jesus's birth-the climactic battle between good and evil would be fought under the leaders.h.i.+p of two messianic figures, a priest and a prince. 10 10 And even if the messiah was a king, his triumph wouldn't necessarily come by military force alone. The "Psalms of Solomon," written in the decades before Jesus's birth, envisioned a messianic king who would "destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth." And even if the messiah was a king, his triumph wouldn't necessarily come by military force alone. The "Psalms of Solomon," written in the decades before Jesus's birth, envisioned a messianic king who would "destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth." 11 11 Still, one thing that all antic.i.p.ated messiahs of Jesus's era had in common was that they would aid a climactic triumph over evil by exercising leaders.h.i.+p here on earth-which meant, for starters, not dying before the climactic triumph over evil. 12 12 Thus, according to prevailing logic, the death of Jesus should have been a devastating blow for any disciples who had been claiming that he was the Messiah. Thus, according to prevailing logic, the death of Jesus should have been a devastating blow for any disciples who had been claiming that he was the Messiah.

Then again, according to prevailing logic, the death of King Josiah in the late seventh century, along with Judah's ensuing catastrophe, should have vindicated polytheists and spelled doom for monolatry, to say nothing of monotheism. But the Yahweh-alone movement had proved creative then, and so would the Jesus movement now. 13 13 Judah's Yahwists found a way to turn calamity into a symbol of G.o.d's universal power, and Jesus's followers found a way to turn calamity into a symbol of G.o.d's universal love. Judah's Yahwists found a way to turn calamity into a symbol of G.o.d's universal power, and Jesus's followers found a way to turn calamity into a symbol of G.o.d's universal love.

How did they do it? Why did they do it? In answering these questions, it helps to appreciate that this lemons-into-lemonade theological maneuver isn't the only thing incipient Christianity has in common with incipient Judaic monotheism. In both cases, also, ensuing scriptures had a tendency to cover theologians' tracks-to recast the past in a way that obscured the actual evolution of doctrine. The Hebrew Bible's latter-day monotheistic authors and editors, in recounting Israel's history, created the illusion of an indigenous Israelite monotheism by depicting G.o.ds other than Yahweh as foreign, whether they were or not. The New Testament's authors, in recounting the life of Jesus, created the illusion that post-Crucifixion belief was basically the same as precrucifixion belief. The Christianity that evolved in the decades and centuries after Jesus's death-the Christianity that had Crucifixion as its natural core-was made to look like a straightforward extension of what Jesus himself had said and done. And in some cases that meant twisting what Jesus had actually said and done.

This isn't to say, in either case, that conscious dishonesty was rampant. As stories spread orally, from person to person to person, an overarching dishonesty can take shape without a conscious attempt to mislead. Imagine followers of the crucified Jesus trying to win converts-possessed by a conviction so powerful that they embellish the story here and there, yet a conviction so earnest that they believe their embellishments.

Anyway, for present purposes the honesty of the Bible's authors isn't what matters. Rather, the take-home lesson is that, in deciphering the Christian revolution, we have to bring to the New Testament the same perspective we brought to the "Old" Testament, the Hebrew Bible. We have to remember that biblical narratives reflect not just the times when the events recounted took place, but the times when the narrative coalesced. With this in mind we can understand how exactly the Crucifixion, an act that in theory should have thrown this would-be messiah into disgrace beyond recovery, wound up turning him into a symbol of universal love.

Certainly this took some doing. For the real Jesus-the "historical Jesus"-didn't emphasize universal love at all. At least, that's what a close and critical look at the scripture strongly suggests.

The "Historical Jesus"

Hard evidence about the "historical Jesus" is scanty. The Bible's gospel accounts of Jesus's life and words-the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-were written sometime between 65 and 100 CE, thirty-five to seventy years after his death.14 By that time, their raw material, stories then circulating about Jesus in oral or written form, had no doubt been shaped by the psychological and rhetorical needs of his followers. (The letters of Paul-New Testament books such as Philippians and Romans-were written earlier, beginning around twenty years after Jesus's death. Unfortunately, they say almost nothing about Jesus's life and very little about his words.) By that time, their raw material, stories then circulating about Jesus in oral or written form, had no doubt been shaped by the psychological and rhetorical needs of his followers. (The letters of Paul-New Testament books such as Philippians and Romans-were written earlier, beginning around twenty years after Jesus's death. Unfortunately, they say almost nothing about Jesus's life and very little about his words.) The book of Mark is generally considered the most factually reliable of the four gospels. It was written around 70 CE, roughly four decades after the Crucifixion. That's a long lag, but it offers less time for the accrual of dubious information than the roughly five decades available for Matthew and Luke or the six or seven decades for John. What's more, during Mark's composition there would have been people sixty or seventy years old who as young adults had personally witnessed the doings and sayings of Jesus and knew his biographical details-and whose recollections may have constrained the author's inventiveness. This population would shrink during the decade or more before other gospels took shape, expanding creative freedom.

Certainly as we move through the gospels in the order of their composition, we can see the acc.u.mulation of more and more dubious information. Mark doesn't give us anything like "the plain unvarnished truth," but his story is plainly less varnished than are later accounts. (The actual name and ident.i.ty of the author of Mark, as with the other gospels, is unknown, but in all cases, for convenience, I'll call the authors by the names of their books.) Consider the problem of Jesus being from a humble village, Nazareth. The Hebrew Bible had said that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David and, like David, would be born in Bethlehem. 15 15 Mark never addresses the question of how "Jesus of Nazareth" could have been born in Bethlehem. But by the time Matthew and Luke were written, an answer had emerged-two answers, even. Luke says Jesus's parents went to Bethlehem for a census and returned to Nazareth after his birth. In Matthew's version, Jesus's parents just seem to live in Bethlehem. How then would Jesus wind up in Nazareth? Through an elaborate side story that has the family fleeing to Egypt under duress and then, upon leaving Egypt, deeming a return to Bethlehem dangerous, and settling in "a town called Nazareth." Mark never addresses the question of how "Jesus of Nazareth" could have been born in Bethlehem. But by the time Matthew and Luke were written, an answer had emerged-two answers, even. Luke says Jesus's parents went to Bethlehem for a census and returned to Nazareth after his birth. In Matthew's version, Jesus's parents just seem to live in Bethlehem. How then would Jesus wind up in Nazareth? Through an elaborate side story that has the family fleeing to Egypt under duress and then, upon leaving Egypt, deeming a return to Bethlehem dangerous, and settling in "a town called Nazareth." 16 16 This contradiction between Luke and Matthew suggests that in this case, Mark, the earliest gospel, is the place to find the awkward truth: Jesus of Nazareth was Jesus of Nazareth. This contradiction between Luke and Matthew suggests that in this case, Mark, the earliest gospel, is the place to find the awkward truth: Jesus of Nazareth was Jesus of Nazareth.

So too with the question of Jesus's att.i.tude toward his own death. If Jesus was the son of G.o.d, sent here to die, you would think he might accept his death with grace-not happily, perhaps, but at least with a certain dignified resignation. After all, he's known about the plan all along, and he knows, too, that he'll be resurrected in the end anyway. Yet in Mark his last words are "My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why have you forsaken me?"-as if the Crucifixion was a terrible surprise and the last act. In Luke, written a decade or two later, there is no such puzzlement, and Jesus's last words are instead the more equanimous "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." In John his last words are simply "It is finished," and, again, there are no signs of doubt or surprise. 17 17 (And as for the most magnanimous of Jesus's sayings on the cross-"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing"-this, uttered early in Luke's Crucifixion scene, seems to have been added after Luke was written.) (And as for the most magnanimous of Jesus's sayings on the cross-"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing"-this, uttered early in Luke's Crucifixion scene, seems to have been added after Luke was written.) 18 18 Once again, Mark, the earliest account, has an inconvenient feature of the Jesus story that later gospels obscure. Once again, Mark, the earliest account, has an inconvenient feature of the Jesus story that later gospels obscure.

Still, there are at least two inconvenient truths that live on not only in Mark but in Matthew, Luke, or both. First, when the Phari-sees challenged Jesus to generate heavenly signs-"to test him," as Mark puts it-he failed to deliver. Second, he was rejected in his own hometown, and here, too, he failed to perform powerfully persuasive miracles. That these failures live on in gospels written later than Mark may mean that, as scholars have suggested, some of Jesus's failures became talking points for opponents of the Jesus movement and perhaps worked their way into a unified, written critique that lived on for decades. 19 19 Even here, where Mark is not alone in conceding awkward facts, he comes across as the most candid, lacking layers of artifice that acc.u.mulate in later accounts. In Mark, when some Pharisees ask for a "sign from heaven," Jesus just gets in his boat and leaves in a huff after saying, "Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation." By the time of Matthew, the story has gotten better. Here, too, Jesus says that this generation will receive no sign, but now there's a reason: this generation is evil. Moreover, Jesus turns the request for a sign on its head by indicting the Pharisees for failing to read the "signs of the times." On a second occasion in Matthew, Jesus uses such a challenge as an occasion to cryptically predict his own death and resurrection; now the Pharisees have have received a sign and are too blind to see it. And by the time of Luke-considered later than Matthew by most scholars who don't judge them essentially contemporary-the problem has been downgraded; the request for a sign no longer comes from the Pharisees at all, but from mere anonymous onlookers, and is dispatched with a confidently oblique reply that includes the encoded prediction of Jesus's death and resurrection. received a sign and are too blind to see it. And by the time of Luke-considered later than Matthew by most scholars who don't judge them essentially contemporary-the problem has been downgraded; the request for a sign no longer comes from the Pharisees at all, but from mere anonymous onlookers, and is dispatched with a confidently oblique reply that includes the encoded prediction of Jesus's death and resurrection. 20 20 Especially awkward for defenders of Jesus, no doubt, was rejection in the town where he was raised. Nazareth had only about three hundred residents. Most would have known Jesus personally, and many were probably kin. It's no surprise that the story of so jarring a rebuke would live on long enough for Mark, Matthew, and Luke to feel compelled to confront it, which they do with growing success.

In all three, Jesus dismisses the debacle with an aphorism that would wind up in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. The seminal version, as relayed in Mark: "Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." Thereafter, the gospel accounts differ. Mark says of Nazareth that Jesus "could do no deed of power there" and left the people in a state of "unbelief." Matthew, ingeniously adding that the latter caused the former, turns the episode into an object lesson on the importance of faith: "And he did not do many deeds of power there because of their unbelief." Luke takes another tack. First, Jesus, rather than seem unresponsive to a popular wish that he do miracles, preemptively antic.i.p.ates the wish: "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Doctor, cure yourself!' And you will say, 'Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.'" And he said, "Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet's hometown." "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Doctor, cure yourself!' And you will say, 'Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.'" And he said, "Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet's hometown."

Then he cites precedent in the Hebrew Bible for prophets applying their miraculous powers abroad rather than at home: the time Elisha cured a Syrian leper even while Israelite lepers suffered. In Luke's telling it is this teaching-a sympathetic reference to Gentiles-that turns the crowd against Jesus, not his failure to perform miracles. 21 21 The accretion of suspiciously convenient lore and interpretation after the writing of Mark doesn't mean that Mark itself is anywhere near being a reliable doc.u.ment, or that its author is guileless. Mark seems responsible for one of the most striking defensive devices in the gospels: the explanation of why Jesus, sent by G.o.d to convince people that the kingdom of G.o.d was at hand, convinced so few people.

In the fourth chapter of Mark, Jesus shares a cryptic parable with a large and presumably uncomprehending crowd. Then, later: When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of G.o.d, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, 'they may indeed look, but not perceive,and may indeed listen, but not understand;so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'" 22 22 Odd-the one sent from heaven to spread the divine word purposely encodes the word so that most people won't get it! The oddness is only mildly diluted by the fact that this has Hebrew Bible precedence (in the story of the prophet Isaiah, to which Jesus here alludes). In all likelihood, this was an early attempt to explain why Jesus, who ostensibly came to enlighten people, had enlightened so few by the time he died-an explanation so needed that the story is preserved in Matthew and Luke.

Such is the general, asymmetrical pattern. Mark is more inclined than later gospels to concede inconvenient facts ("Why have you forsaken me?"). And when later gospels do include such facts (the Nazareth fiasco, for example), they tend to retain Markian devices that explain them away, and they sometimes throw in additional exculpatory devices not found in Mark. The later gospels shroud Jesus's life in more obfuscation, and more successful obfuscation, than Mark does. As the decades go by - 70 70 CE, 80 CE, 90 CE-the Jesus story gets less constrained by historical memory and more impressive. CE, 80 CE, 90 CE-the Jesus story gets less constrained by historical memory and more impressive.

This trend culminates in John, the latest of the gospels. Here unfortunate facts that even Matthew or Luke felt compelled to concede are ignored or even inverted. There is no mention of the Nazareth fiasco, and as for Jesus's failure to perform signs for the Pharisees: time after time, in the book of John, Pharisees are convinced that Jesus can perform signs and wonders. As one of them marvels, "No one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of G.o.d." 23 23 Indeed, by the time of John there has been a general change in the tenor of Jesus's miracles. In Mark, Jesus didn't do miracles ostentatiously, and sometimes he even took pains to perform them in private. (An answer to critics who noted that few people other than Jesus's followers claimed witness to his miracles?) In John, Jesus turns miracles into spectacles. Before raising Lazarus from the dead-something Jesus does in no other gospel-he says Lazarus's illness was "for G.o.d's glory, so that the son of G.o.d may be glorified through it." Moreover, the miracles are now explicitly symbolic. When Jesus heals a blind man, he says, "I am the light of the world." 24 24 A fairly immodest claim-but John's Jesus is not a modest man. In no previous gospel does Jesus equate himself with G.o.d. But in John he says, "The Father and I are one." 25 25 Christian legend and theology have by this point had sixty or seventy years to evolve, and they are less obedient than ever to memories of the real, human Jesus. Christian legend and theology have by this point had sixty or seventy years to evolve, and they are less obedient than ever to memories of the real, human Jesus.

All of this suggests that if we are going to try to make a stab at reconstructing the "historical Jesus," even in broadest outlines, Mark, the earliest gospel, is the place to start. There, more than in any other account of Jesus's life and sayings, the number of plainly awkward and barely varnished facts suggests at least some degree of factualness.

Thy Kingdom Come.

What is the Jesus of Mark like? For starters, adventurous. Early on, after being immersed in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, he spends forty days alone in the wilderness. This episode could be apocryphal, but it's a plausible prelude to a messianic career. We know from the "vision quests" of young native American men that ascetic solitude can impart a sense of purpose, sometimes catalyzed by presumably hallucinatory contact with supernatural beings. In the book of Mark, the supernatural being was Satan, whose temptations failed to divert Jesus from his mission.

That mission was twofold.

One part was to go around healing people, exorcising their demons and, occasionally, multiplying foodstuffs. Here Jesus sounds rather like other healers and exorcists who roamed Palestine at the time. 26 26 He also sounds like a cla.s.sic shaman in a "primitive" society: after an apprentices.h.i.+p that involves the blessing of an older pract.i.tioner (John the Baptist) and a fortifying phase of ascetic privation, he is empowered to cure the physically or mentally ill. He also sounds like a cla.s.sic shaman in a "primitive" society: after an apprentices.h.i.+p that involves the blessing of an older pract.i.tioner (John the Baptist) and a fortifying phase of ascetic privation, he is empowered to cure the physically or mentally ill. 27 27 Did Jesus employ the sleight of hand that many real-life shamans have been known to employ? (One scholarly book on Jesus is called Did Jesus employ the sleight of hand that many real-life shamans have been known to employ? (One scholarly book on Jesus is called Jesus the Magician Jesus the Magician.) Or did he just have a "gift"-say, a soothing effect on people with hysterically induced illnesses-that produced enough success stories for his followers to publicize, along with some embellishment? Or were his miraculous deeds wholesale inventions of his followers, designed to outweigh the famous occasions on which he was challenged to produce "signs" and failed?

Hard to say. In any event, if Jesus had just been another wandering Palestinian wonder worker, we would never have heard of him. It is the second, nonshamanic part of Jesus's mission that would prove momentous. In Mark, his first act upon returning from the wilderness is to go to Galilee and start predicting the arrival of the "kingdom of G.o.d."

Here Jesus is picking up where Second Isaiah left off half a millennium earlier: in apocalyptic mode. Isaiah had envisioned a day when Yahweh would finally bring justice to the world, when the long-suffering faithful could rejoice, as oppressive imbalances of power were inverted. Jesus shared Isaiah's antic.i.p.ation of a time when the "last shall be first and the first shall be last," as he put it. But Jesus was more specific about when this time would come: very, very soon. The day of salvation, when good would finally triumph over evil, was near. Hence the term "gospel"-"good news." Jesus's first words in the Gospel of Mark are "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of G.o.d is at hand; repent, and believe in the good news." 28 28 What would the coming of the kingdom be like? Some pa.s.sages attributed to Jesus make it sound like a subtle spiritual thing, perhaps just a metaphor. "The kingdom of G.o.d is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of G.o.d is among you." But this verse, from Luke, was written some fifty years after Jesus's death, perhaps to a.s.suage growing doubts about Jesus's prediction that the kingdom of G.o.d would arrive any day now. More reliable evidence comes from Mark in the form of the prediction itself: "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of G.o.d has come in power." And they'll know it when they see it: "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven." 29 29 Drama was in order, since the blessed event was nothing less than the imposition of G.o.d's ideal state-which heretofore had existed only in heaven-on the otherwise imperfect world of human beings. As the Lord's Prayer puts it, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

G.o.d's will was that those unworthy of citizens.h.i.+p would be cast out, consigned to eternal suffering. Here Jesus clearly means business: if your foot causes you to stumble while treading the path to salvation, he says, you should cut it off, and "if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of G.o.d with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into h.e.l.l, where... the fire is never quenched." 30 30 Where Is the Love?

And what were the criteria of admission? What was Jesus's conception of righteousness? If we do our best to reconstruct the "historical Jesus," which of the moral teachings attributed to him seem to be authentically his? The answer that emerges from the earliest renderings of his message will disappoint Christians who credit Jesus with bringing the good news of G.o.d's boundless compa.s.sion.

In the book of Mark, the word "love" appears in only one pa.s.sage. 31 31 Jesus, asked by a scribe which biblical commandment is foremost, cites two: "The first is... 'you shall love the Lord your G.o.d with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Jesus, asked by a scribe which biblical commandment is foremost, cites two: "The first is... 'you shall love the Lord your G.o.d with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" 32 32 When the scribe agrees and deems these commandments "more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus says, "You are not far from the kingdom of heaven." When the scribe agrees and deems these commandments "more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," Jesus says, "You are not far from the kingdom of heaven."

This is definitely a message of love. But love of what breadth? We've already seen that in the verse Jesus quotes-the Hebrew Bible's injunction to love your neighbor-the meaning of "neighbor" was probably confined to other Israelites. In other words: neighbor meant neighbor. There is no obvious reason to believe that this part of the earliest gospel, the only part of Mark where the word "love" shows up at all, was meant more expansively.

In fact, there is reason to believe otherwise. Two gospels carry the story of a woman who asks Jesus to exorcise a demon from her daughter. Unfortunately for her, she isn't from Israel. (She is "Canaanite" in one gospel, "Syrophoenician" in another.) Jesus takes this into account and replies, with one of his less flattering allegories, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." Pathetically, the woman answers, "Yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table," 33 33 after which Jesus relents and tosses her some crumbs by tossing out the demons. after which Jesus relents and tosses her some crumbs by tossing out the demons.

Defenders of Jesus might say he was just piquantly driving home the fact that Gentiles can find salvation through faith. Indeed, that is the way the story plays out in Matthew, as Jesus exclaims, "Great is your faith!" But in Mark, the earlier telling of the story, there's no mention of faith. What wins Jesus's favor, it seems, is the woman's acknowledging her inferior status by embracing her end of the master-dog metaphor; with the woman bowed before him, Jesus answers only, "For saying that, you may go-the demon has left your daughter." 34 34 This Jesus doesn't sound like the ethnicity-blind Jesus in the modern Sunday school song: Jesus loves the little children,All the children of the world.Red and yellow, black and white,All are precious in His sight,Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Defenders of the traditional idea of a color-blind Jesus might point out that, at the end of Mark, Jesus tells his disciples, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved." But it turns out that this pa.s.sage was added well after Mark was written. 35 35 Besides, bringing word of Israel's G.o.d to the world doesn't necessarily mean granting foreigners the status of Israelites. Second Isaiah had wanted the world's people to witness Yahweh's grandeur, and thus find a salvation of sorts, but the idea was that they would then bow to Zion in subservience to Israel's G.o.d and hence to Israel. In fact, when Jesus says, in Mark, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'?" he is alluding to a pa.s.sage in which Second Isaiah envisions foreigners being brought to G.o.d's house in Israel "to be his servants." Besides, bringing word of Israel's G.o.d to the world doesn't necessarily mean granting foreigners the status of Israelites. Second Isaiah had wanted the world's people to witness Yahweh's grandeur, and thus find a salvation of sorts, but the idea was that they would then bow to Zion in subservience to Israel's G.o.d and hence to Israel. In fact, when Jesus says, in Mark, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'?" he is alluding to a pa.s.sage in which Second Isaiah envisions foreigners being brought to G.o.d's house in Israel "to be his servants." 36 36 In short, if we are to judge by Mark, the earliest and most reliable of the four gospels, the Jesus we know today isn't the Jesus who really existed. The real Jesus believes you should love your neighbors, but that isn't to be confused with loving all humankind. He believes you should love G.o.d, but there's no mention of G.o.d loving you. In fact, if you don't repent for your sins and heed Jesus's message, you will be denied entry into the kingdom of G.o.d. (What about the Jesus who said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? 37 37 That verse not only comes from the last gospel, John, but apparently was added centuries after John was written.) In Mark there is no Sermon on the Mount, no beat.i.tudes. Jesus doesn't say, "Blessed are the meek" or "Turn the other cheek" or "Love your enemy." That verse not only comes from the last gospel, John, but apparently was added centuries after John was written.) In Mark there is no Sermon on the Mount, no beat.i.tudes. Jesus doesn't say, "Blessed are the meek" or "Turn the other cheek" or "Love your enemy."

The Gospel According to Q.

For people who would like to think Jesus said those three things, there is a ray of hope. The hope is called "Q." The books of Matthew and Luke share many stories, and the stories fall into two categories: the kind that are found in Mark, and the kind that aren't. Most scholars infer that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access both to the book of Mark and to some other source-an actual doc.u.ment, presumably-that is referred to as Q. If Q existed, it must have been earlier than Matthew and Luke, and some scholars think it was much earlier, bearing at least as close a connection to the "historical Jesus" as Mark does. And Q includes the Sermon on the Mount, which features, among several striking utterances, this fairly radical one: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous." 38 38 That definitely sounds like universal love. After all, if you love your enemies, who don't don't you love? But is it really clear that Jesus is here talking about Gentile enemies-about enemies you love? But is it really clear that Jesus is here talking about Gentile enemies-about enemies of of the Jews, as opposed to enemies the Jews, as opposed to enemies among among the Jews? Certainly Jesus's att.i.tude toward Gentiles doesn't sound very charitable two verses later, when, elaborating on the need to spread your love widely, he says, "And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" the Jews? Certainly Jesus's att.i.tude toward Gentiles doesn't sound very charitable two verses later, when, elaborating on the need to spread your love widely, he says, "And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?" 39 39 Citing this and other parts of Q, the scholar C. M. Tuckett has observed: "The natural language of Q seems to a.s.sume that 'gentiles' are those who are outside the sphere of salvation." The "terms of reference seem to be wholly Israel-oriented." Citing this and other parts of Q, the scholar C. M. Tuckett has observed: "The natural language of Q seems to a.s.sume that 'gentiles' are those who are outside the sphere of salvation." The "terms of reference seem to be wholly Israel-oriented." 40 40 In other words, "love your enemy," like "love your neighbor," is a recipe for Israelite social cohesion, not for interethnic bonding. In other words, "love your enemy," like "love your neighbor," is a recipe for Israelite social cohesion, not for interethnic bonding.

Tuckett could be wrong, of course, but that may be a moot issue. In the next chapter we'll find reason to doubt that the real Jesus actually uttered the phrase "Love your enemies" anyway.

To find Jesus explicitly carrying the mandate of love beyond the bounds of Israel, we have to go to the book of Luke. After establis.h.i.+ng that "Love your neighbor" lies at the core of the Jewish Law, Jesus is asked, "And who is my neighbor?" He replies with a story about a man from Jerusalem who is beaten and left lying by the road. Two fellow Jews, a priest and a Levite, pa.s.s him without helping, and then a man from Samaria pa.s.ses by, takes pity on him, and restores him to health. (Samaria had been part of the northern kingdom of ancient Israel, but, after successive imperial conquests, Judaism didn't take root there, so Samaritans were foreigners to Judeans.) Jesus says, "Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" His listener says, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus replies, "Go and do likewise." 41 41 This, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, is a staple of Sunday school cla.s.ses, and understandably so; it explicitly carries love across ethnic bounds. But it isn't found in either candidate for earliest gospel source-the Gospel of Mark or the posited Q. So it is an unlikely utterance of the historical Jesus, especially given its clash with things that are are found in earlier sources, such as Jesus's calling foreigners "dogs." It clashes, too, with other sources that, if not the earliest, are at least as early as Luke. For example, in Matthew, Jesus has only this to say about Samaritans, shortly before sending his disciples out to spread the saving word: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." found in earlier sources, such as Jesus's calling foreigners "dogs." It clashes, too, with other sources that, if not the earliest, are at least as early as Luke. For example, in Matthew, Jesus has only this to say about Samaritans, shortly before sending his disciples out to spread the saving word: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 42 42 The Israelocentric nature of the coming kingdom of G.o.d is echoed elsewhere in the New Testament. Ever wonder why there were twelve disciples? In both Matthew and Luke Jesus says that, once the kingdom of G.o.d has arrived, each disciple will get to rule one of the twelve tribes of a reconst.i.tuted Israel. And since they'll be seated alongside the ruler of this kingdom - presumably Jesus or some other divinely anointed figure, if not Yahweh himself-this suggests a prominent role for Israel in the scheme of things; it suggests that the "kingdom of G.o.d" is also the "kingdom of Israel." 43 43 Indeed, in the book of Acts the apostles ask Jesus, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" Indeed, in the book of Acts the apostles ask Jesus, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?" 44 44 This conversation, set after the Resurrection, is unlikely to have taken place. But the point is that the author of Acts (who was also the author of Luke) must have been steeped in local lore about Jesus's ministry, and he still considered this the kind of question the apostles might well have asked. Moreover, Jesus doesn't take the opportunity to correct them by waxing universalistic and saying, "This isn't about Israel." He seems to accept the premise of a coming Israelite kingdom, correcting them only on the question of timing: "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority." 45 45 What Exactly Was New?

Jesus is often called a radic