Every month I will write about something I recommend buying and why. Still shopping for Christmas? Want to get me a commission for my birthday? Here’s the way!
I am an Amazon Associate, so if you click through the sales link in any of these recommendation blogs (like today’s), or indeed any page on my blog, I get a commission on everything in your cart when you check out—even if you don’t buy the thing I recommend, and even if you buy a bunch of weird stuff like a fancy little writing desk or a Catholic reliquary for your favorite deceased pet’s toe bone or something—as long as you fill that cart after following my link, and cash it out within 24 hours (those last two links might not work outside the United States, but you can click through any links that do, like for books usually, and then look around for your own odd stuff in your own nation’s Amazon store, and it works the same way).
I also get bonuses (in addition to the commissions) if my links pull enough sales volume every month, so it’s super great if you buy a lot of stuff through links on my site. Hitting their bonus threshold of a thousand dollars in sales a month is hard to do, but hey, let’s try!
Today I am highlighting a series from a personal friend that I can honestly say is a really good resource everyone interested in “religion” writ large will find useful. This falls back into the subject of the Origins of Christianity (next will be Modern Philosophy and then Ancient Science again—and then I’ll circle back and start over!). But this is a handy reference to have on your shelf. It’s also available in electronic and audio formats (at least for volume one, other volumes to follow). And it’s a fun read!
-:-
People living in a Christian (or any other Biblical culture, like Judaism or Islam) often swim in a sea of assumptions as to what is normal or standard worldwide, and thus miss out on a crucial piece of information: how weird these religions are, and how their history connects with the entire world history of religion. To gain that perspective there simply is no other one-stop shop as good or complete (or as up to date now) as Fitzgerald’s series Playing God (2024). Volume 1 covers the Evolution of God and the Gods of Monotheism; Volume 2, Judaism and Christianity; and Volume 3, Islam and the Eastern Religions. Extensively researched with the talent of an experienced journalist, its bibliographies alone are worth the price. But they’re also written with wit and charm.



Why this set? Because they are thorough in scope and big in picture, and well-referenced. There really isn’t anything like this anymore. There used to be things like this, way back in the 19th century, sweeping surveys of world religion and its history, but those were all poorly researched even then, and hopelessly obsolete now. There are dictionaries or encyclopedias of world religion but always curt, dry, usually fawning and shallow, and not by a single author keeping you in a single comparative frame of mind. Which is the main value of this series: it covers history as a unifying subject—with skepticism—and explaining why we are stuck with the weird religions we have today, and how deviant they are even from their own traditions.
If you want to situate Christianity in its actual context of world religious history, this is the best place to start. Likewise if you just want to philosophically explore the subject of religion altogether, without the narrow framing Christianity has tried to squeeze it into with its false narrative of uniqueness and inevitability. Indeed, even if you disagree or doubt something Fitzgerald proposes, he breadcrumbs you to the resources you need to check it out, and everything in here stands on some expert or other. He is clear on what is concrete fact and what is theory, which is what you need in a field rife with competing claims and perspectives. Besides being a good read just in themselves, this three volume set will be a valuable addition to any personal library as a reference set. It also makes good edification to just listen all the way through, if you like audiobooks to occupy you while commuting or doing chores or anything else. Volume one may be on Audible eventually, but right now it’s only on Spotify.
It’s getting excellent reviews on Amazon: as of today, over forty ratings, averaging 4.5 of 5 stars. The one (!) person who gave it two stars said nothing about it and couldn’t be verified as even having read it. While the only three star review (a verified buyer) said, “Very good consideration of the origin of the Old Testament and Monotheism. Well researched and with extensive footnotes. The reader must really come to the book with a basic understanding of the issues under discussion and an open mind.” That’s actually spot on. Everyone else gave it four (15%) or five stars (80%).
To illustrate what they and I are responding to, I decided to pick a random page to reproduce for you to get a gist of what they’re talking about, and landed on a section about the evolution of moral universalism as part of Robert Wright’s three-stage process in The Evolution of God, which Fitzgerald describes as, “first, an ethical core; second, a growing universalism; and third, an inclination toward monotheism,” or one might say henotheism (as with angelology and demonology and a pantheon of Saints, Judeo-Christian religions aren’t even really monotheists by any ancient definition of “gods”). In the tiny but I am clipping (from page 103 of volume 1) are two endnotes, to a secondary source (Wright) and a primary source (Diogenes Laertius), but the point made is this:
An ethical core can be a fine thing, but there needs to be more. Wright notes even murderous racists can be nice to members of their own race, and in that sense be ethical.45 But in the mid-first-millennium BCE, empires grew larger—and more importantly, brought more diverse cultures together. That xenophobic brand of myopic ethical tunnel vision wasn’t going to cut it if you were an emperor like an Alexander or an Ashoka; not if your goal was to keep your empire intact. Ethics couldn’t be just for one’s own group anymore. An expanded circle of moral concern would be called for.
When the 4th century Cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope was once asked where he came from, he reportedly replied, ‘I am a citizen of the world’ (actually, in Greek, kosmopolitês—a citizen of the cosmos).46 From kosmopolitês, we get cosmopolitanism, the idea that we were all in this together, all fellow passengers in the same cosmic boat. During the Hellenistic period, this universalist outlook would be championed by Xeno and his Stoics, and would grow, in both philosophical and religious circles. An idea this radical—envisioning a community big enough to encompass all human beings, regardless of their beliefs or political affiliations—went far beyond the scope of say, Plato and Aristotle.
Illustrating that none of this came from Christianity or even Western thought but was an inevitable evolution driven by empirical reasoning, and predated Christianity by centuries. Here and there Fitzgerald nods to developments in India and China as examples (he goes more into their religions in later volumes). If universalism arose in ancient China without even Western influence, it clearly can’t have been uniquely Western at all, much less Christian.
This whole three-volume series is like that, and in a sense expands the amazing accomplishment of Fitzgerald’s study of The Mormons, one of the most thorough and useful treatments of the history of that uniquely American religion. And anyone who wants to really dive into that weird religion, I also recommend David Persuitte’s Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon. Combined with Fitzgerald’s history, you almost don’t need any other book on Mormonism. But if you’ve already read Fitzgerald’s The Mormons, then you know the depth, quality, and sourcing you will find in all three volumes of Playing God.





Just bought the Kindle version of “Playing God” volume 3.
I’m currently reading his three volumes of mything in action. Matt Dillahunty was unnecessarily hostile to David in a video about mythcism. You wouldn’t use those standards for anyone else in history… The problem is that almost no one was as mythologized as Jesus. Matt’s content is mostly debate drama, which is theater. Unfortunately many people like that. Do you think the secret gospel of mark found by Morton smith was forged by him?
Hard to say. I’d put the hypotheses in this order (roughly):
42% it was forged in the 18th/19th century.
38% Morton forged it.
15% it was forged in the Middle Ages.
> 4% it is authentic but Clement was duped by a forged text of Mark.
< 1% it is all authentic.
Thanks for the helpful, positive review of Fitzgerald’s 3 volumes. It’s also nice to know he is a friend of yours. I’ve enjoyed hearing him discuss these works on various channel interviews. They have been on my list for a while. Your recommendation is the prompt I needed to order them. I’ve heard Fitzgerald discuss the growing group of mythicist scholars of various traditions – Islam & Buddhism come immediately to mind – as more founder origin stories gets critical treatment. So I am looking forward to some comparative lit & religious studies beyond my current dive into Christainities & Judaism – via Mormonism, strangely. Once upon a time, I was a happy naturalist atheist going about my secular, science-focused life. Then I moved to Utah and got curious about what my neighbors & coworkers believed – mind blown. It sent me down the religious studies & history rabbit hole. Still digging.
I may post a separate comment on why studying Mormonism is important & the 2 Davids’ books on the topic. I don’t think I’ve ever posted a blog comment but am a Patreon supporter.
Note I reference the ahistoricity suspicions in the peer reviewed literature for Buddhism and Confucianism in OPH as well (only in passing, p. 377, but with a bibliography).
Perhaps you’ve already heard of this idea, but I’m pretty sure I’ve figured out Jesus’ angelic name, and it’s not Immanuel it’s… Israel.
There’s an obscure 1st century Jewish text called the prayer of Joseph which only survives in fragments, the longest of which comes from Origen’s commentary on the gospel of John, here’s the passage:
Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.25
Throughout the old testament Israel is frequently referred to as the first-born of God, and many of the prophecies the NT authors claim are about Jesus actually make a lot more sense in this light. Take Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matthew 2:15 as being about Jesus:
Then there are the servant songs in Deutero-Isaiah, which is taken as a prophecy about Jesus despite the text identifying the servant as Israel (In-fact Justin Martyr makes this connection, see bellow). Compare also the statement that Abraham and Isaac (presumably also angelic beings in this text) existed before creation with John 8:58
Now let’s turn to Philo’s Logos: In “on the confusion of tongues Philo says the following:
OCT 146-148
The earlier passage being passage 41
Now from the above considerations alone I think we’d have sufficient reason to suspect Jesus’ angelic name is Israel, but we don’t even need to speculate since we have Justin Martyr telling us as much in his Dialogue with Trypho,
Ch 123
And
Ch 125
And
Ch 126
And
Ch 135
Lots and lots of other examples in Justin, but I think this gets the point across.
I haven’t seen any scholars make this connection but I think it might be worth looking further into, although I’m merely a layman.
I don’t know the merits of any of that.
But the idea that Jesus is a stand-in for Israel (as the New Israel) is mainstream (Google Scholar returns hundreds of studies on the phrase “Jesus is Israel” and that won’t even be a complete list).
As is also the fact that he is a stand-in for Isaac (reversing the Abraham story, per Hebrews 9) and Moses (as the new Founder and Lawgiver) and Elijah and Elisha (the entire Elijah-Elisha sequence in Luke, but already begun in Mark) and Jesus ben Jehozadak and Jesus ben Ananias and Melchizedek, and even the Rock that provided water to Moses (1 Cor 10). Plus the angel Michael. That’s just the Jewish metaphors he completes. He also stands in for Dionysus, Odysseus, Osiris, and Romulus.
There is a lot of this kind of crazy theorizing in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was a typical way to think about the coming Messiah. The Christians just picked up and continued the same methods and ideas.
In an abstract sense this is clear from the new testament alone, but I’m curious if the early Christians also could have taken it as an angelic name, since, well, it is an angelic name.
The prayer of Joseph seems to confirm there were Jews who believed the first-born archangel is named Israel, and if you squint at what Philo is saying in OCT 146-148, he seems to be saying the same. What really does it for me though is Justin’s comment in chapter 125 in Trypho.
He has a different idea of what happened when Jacob was struggling with the angel than does the author of the prayer, but he outright states that the pre-incarnate Christ was called Israel. Justin is also early and educated enough to have had access to at least some secret teachings that were later forgotten or deemed heretical.
There is also the Islamic archangel Israfel (Israfil in arabic) who is said to be the oldest of the archangels and mediates between the archangels and God, he is also the one who will blow his trumpet to signify the end (compare with 1 Thessalonians 4:16). In sufi tradition it is also said that the Qutb (basically the ideal man) has a heart that resembles Israfil (similar to Jesus being the moral ideal in both christianity and Islam). To be fair I’m mostly speculating here, some scholars have tried to associate him with Raphael, but there doesn’t seem to be any wide-spread agreement.
Indeed, there are theories that Islam is an offshoot of Christianity (like Mormonism), in its case an offshoot of Torah-observant Syriac Christianity (possibly the oldest Christian sect, closer to the original sect of Peter than any other: the Nazorians, known to occupy the region between Palestine and Mesopotamia). That would pull along with it all the esoteric theology developed by that sect. And that could thus preserve a pre-Christian Jewish ideology about the angel Israel being Michael and thus in fact the Messiah (and therefore, the Christians then averred, Jesus).
However we cannot prove this on extant evidence because Arabic countries simply did not preserve many records and were rampant with post-hoc editing and doctoring what records they had. This is why we need to verify this existed via Jewish sources. The existence of Islamic sources echoing something similar can then be brought in as supporting evidence (by cladistic logic: the best explanation of how we’d see the same basic idea in three different religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is if it dates back to their Jewish origins).
Yes. There is some evidence of that. It’s convoluted, but exists. I have a colleague working on a book relating to questions like that.
The gist is that there are obscure references to Israel being one of the names of the angel of Israel (Israel is after all an angelic name: Isra-El, just like Immanu-El and Micha-El etc.), and there are separate obscure references to the angel of Israel being in fact (also named) Michael, and there are separate obscure references to Jesus being (secretly) the angel Michael. So walk that chain of evidence back and you get “Jesus is the angel Israel.” It’s just a convoluted chain and of obscure evidence, so it’s not a slam dunk.
On Jesus as Michael there are already good studies. See my article Was Jesus-Is-Michael an Early Christian Mystery Teaching? (which also shows this may have already been a messianic expectation when Christianity began, that the messiah would secretly be the angel Michael: I note in OHJ that this is strongly implied by Daniel 9 and 12). The book by Hannah that that summarizes discusses the chain of evidence I just mentioned (pp. 88ff. includes what you catch from Philo for example; and there is more than he mentions, but it’s in more difficult sources to date and place).
The reason Justin is not great evidence is that (a) Christian authors of that period are notoriously dishonest and poorly informed (the worst combination) and (b) what they report may be new and peculiar Christian ideas and not anything that goes back to the first century of the religion or Judaism. So it’s hard to make anything out of that. That later anti-Jewish Christians decided that Jesus would replace Israel and invented stories and tales and exegesis to get that result is too self-interested to trust as accurate information relevant to the origin of the religion.
Sources like Philo (and the Talmud and other Judaica) are more valuable because they are less likely to have that kind of explanation (it’s not impossible, but is unlikely).
-:-
Finally: the real lynchpin is the Metatron, not Israel. Every appearance and communication with God in the OT (including the wrestling match and burning bush, and every word spoken by every prophet, unless otherwise attributed), by the time Christianity began, was being credited to a single angel called the Metatron. That may be an office rather than a name, so different angels may have had the assignment. But some sources suggest it was always or usually Michael. That it was then also (secretly) Jesus follows per Hannah.