Tag: history

The Dark Side

nivtricLeave a comment

Trade and finance

In the past, ordinary people regarded merchants and bankers with suspicion. In popular culture, trade and banking were the domains of people of questionable ethics. Merchants are as slippery as eels, so it is hard to pin down the issue, but everywhere you see the death and destruction they cause. Hermes, the Greek god of trade, was also the god of thieves. Jesus Christ chased the money changers from the Jewish temple. In The Parable of the Talents, however, Jesus said that you must put your qualities to work. Talents were money, so it could mean putting your money to work. And Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. Economics as we know it now didn’t exist, so we can’t blame him for lacking a consistent view on economics. Someone claiming to be Paul added that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil. The Jewish sage Jesus Sirach noted, ‘A merchant can hardly avoid doing wrong. Every salesman is guilty of sin.’ The Jews and Protestants excluded him from their canons, but his musings are in the Catholic Bible. Greed, or the pursuit of profit, drives trade. Traditional moral systems considered it wrong. We have gone a long way since then. Today, we hold a different view and see trade as mutually beneficial, so those who engage in trade do so voluntarily because they all benefit. Eels are very slippery indeed. And so are merchants.

Today, trade and finance are at the core of our economic and moral system. And so, Friedrich Hayek could write, ‘The disdain for profit is due to ignorance and to an attitude that we may, if we wish, admire in the ascetic who has chosen to be content with a small share of the riches of this world, but which, when actualised in the form of restrictions on others, is selfish to the extent that it imposes asceticism, and indeed deprivations of all sorts, on others.’ Our ethic is that we can do as we please, as if consequences don’t exist. And the ascetic is selfish when he says everyone should live like him. It is moral depravity at its finest. And so, what was good has become evil, and what was evil has become good.

The problem is not self-interest as such, but greed or the ethic of the merchant, and that the difference isn’t clear. Many merchants are people like you and me without evil intent. Shop owners make a living like everyone else and provide their customers with a service. They are often people who care, not the greedy, evil kind that run Wall Street or sell weapons to warring factions in Africa. But something is profoundly wrong with trade. Even a shop owner doesn’t produce something. They provide a service by trading in markets. And individual merchants may have ethical values, but markets never have them. Everything is for sale. Suppressing trade promotes illicit markets and crime. And so, we accept the drawbacks, thinking the alternatives are worse. That is a fatal mistake.

A pragmatic approach says that outcomes matter more than intent, so if the result of nefarious intent, like greed, is good, it is good. And if the outcome of good intent is terrible, it is wrong or perhaps even evil. If factory owners destroy artisans’ businesses and pay their employees low wages, but overall opulence increases as cloth becomes cheaper, then it is good. Likewise, if a country switches to socialism out of good intentions, but the population starves, it is evil. Before the Industrial Revolution, nearly everyone was as miserable as today’s poorest. Capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty. So why bother?

Trade and finance became the engine of growth, bringing industrialisation, modernisation, colonisation, the slave trade, mass migration, the loss of livelihoods for craftspeople, and the depopulation of the countryside. Various movements, such as socialists, anti-globalists, religious groups, small-is-beautiful, and environmentalists, attempted to provide alternatives to the current order with their visions of Paradise, but they all failed. The system is amoral, a brute force driven by our sentiments and urges. As consumers, we crave the best service at the lowest price, and as investors, we desire corporations to increase their profits. And we don’t think about the consequences.

Usury: the destroyer of civilisations

Money is to the economy what blood is to the body. It must flow. Otherwise, the economy will die. If we stop buying stuff, businesses go bankrupt, we become unemployed, the government receives no taxes, and everything comes to a standstill. That never happens because we spend money on necessities like fast food, smartphones, and sneakers. When we buy less, the economy slows, and we enter a recession, or if it gets worse, a depression. Businesses disappear, and people become unemployed and depressed. Usually, the economy recovers, but it may take time, sometimes decades. It is why we must keep buying stuff, and even more, to make the economy grow.

In the past, when borrowers couldn’t repay their debts, they became the moneylenders’ serfs. It is why several ancient civilisations had regular debt cancellations and why religions like Christianity and Islam forbade interest on money or debts. Usury is paying for the use of money, which is a profoundly evil practice. The evil of it lies in the money flows. We all need a medium of exchange. A simple explanation helps to clarify the issue. Imagine the Duckburg economy running on 100 gold coins. With these 100 gold coins, everyone has enough money, and the Duckburg economy operates smoothly. Scrooge McDuck owns ten, but he is a miser and doesn’t use them to buy items from others.

The economic flows of Duckburg now suffer a 10-coin shortfall. Products then remain unsold, and several ducks lose their jobs. To prevent that, Scrooge McDuck can lend these coins for one year at 10% interest to ducks who come short, so the money keeps flowing. At the end of the year, the economy is 11 short. Scrooge McDuck then lends 11 coins at 10%. In this way, he will own all the coins after 25 years. Scrooge McDuck can implode the Duckburg economy by keeping the money in his vault. When the citizens of Duckburg become desperate, Scrooge McDuck can buy their homes, let them pay rent, and become even richer. If you think that is smart, you have the ethics of a merchant. It demonstrates why, in traditional popular culture, merchants and bankers were evil.

Two things have changed since then. Starting with the Industrial Revolution, economic growth picked up, which helped to pay for the interest charges. The nature of money has also changed. It isn’t gold anymore. Nowadays, banks create money from thin air, so the nature of usury has also changed. When you go to a bank and take out a loan, such as a car loan, you get a deposit and a debt that the bank creates on the spot by creating two bookkeeping entries. The deposit becomes someone else’s money once you purchase the car. When you repay the loan, that bank deposit and the debt disappear. You must repay the loan with interest. If the interest rate is 5% and you have borrowed € 100 for a year, you must return € 105.

Nearly all the money we use is deposits created from loans that borrowers must return with interest. Banks might pay interest on deposits. The depositors of a bank act like Scrooge McDuck. They have more money than they need and keep it in the account at interest. If they have borrowed € 1,000,000 at 5% interest, they must return € 1,050,000 after a year. Where does the extra € 50,000 come from? Here are the options:

  • borrowers borrow more;
  • depositors spend some of their balance;
  • borrowers don’t pay back their loans;
  • the government borrows more or
  • the central bank prints the money.

Problems arise when borrowers don’t borrow and depositors don’t spend their money. In that case, borrowers are € 50,000 short, and some can’t repay their loans. If many borrowers can’t, you have a financial crisis. Borrowers can reduce their spending to pay off their debts, leading to a slowdown of the economy. The economy is also unstable due to investor expectations. They expect more in the future. If debts remain unpaid or people stop spending, they incur losses and may lose trust and stop investing.

If they lose trust, they stop investing, less money flows into the economy, businesses go bankrupt, people become unemployed, and more borrowers get into trouble. As a result, even less money flows, causing banks to go bankrupt. Economists call it deflationary collapse. That happened in the 1930s, causing the severest economic depression in modern history. There was no money in the economy because lenders feared losing it. To prevent that from happening, governments run deficits and central banks print currency whenever there are shortages in the money flows. With interest on debts, these things are hard to avoid. But if the system never collapses, debts and interest payments only grow.

The 2008 financial crisis could have been much worse than the 1930s, potentially leading to the collapse of civilisation as we know it. That was due not only to the accumulation of far more debts but also because most people now live in cities, where they have become dependent on markets and governments. In the 1930s, most people still lived in the countryside. Central banks prevented a collapse by printing trillions of US dollars, euros, and other currencies. The shortfall was that enormous. We now buy our necessities in shops and rely on the government to keep the system running. We have not only become the usurers’ hostages, but also the hostages of markets and governments.

Barataria: an economic fairy tale

Money equals power, and the lure of riches corrupts us, so the alternatives to the system of trade and usury have failed. They can’t compete. A few people step out, but it is like a rehab from a consumption addiction. It is a sober life while everyone around you keeps on living the good life. After us, the deluge is the prevailing mood. The deluge is already taking off. Storms feed on the warming sea water and leave their burden on our shores. But what are our options anyway? In the early 1990s, the Strohalm Foundation published The Miracle Island Barataria, an economic parable by the Argentinian-German economist Silvio Gesell.1 I rewrote the narrative somewhat to better highlight its message. Gesell explores three options: (1) communism or socialism, (2) a market economy without traders and bankers, and (3) a fully capitalist economy.

In 1612, a few hundred Spanish families landed on Barataria, an island in the Atlantic, after their ships had sunk. The Spanish government believed they had drowned, so no one searched for them, and they became an isolated community. They worked together to build houses, shared their harvests, and had meetings in which they decided about the affairs that concerned everyone. It was democracy and communism. After ten years, the teacher, Diego Martinez, called everyone into a meeting. He noted that working together and sharing had helped them build their community, but the islanders had become lazy. They came late to work, took long breaks, and left early. They spent their time at meetings discussing what to do, but much work remained undone.

‘If someone has a good idea, he must propose it in a meeting to people who don’t understand it. We discuss it but usually we don’t agree or we don’t do what we agree upon. And so, nothing gets done and we remain poor. We could do better if we have the right to the fruits of our labour and take responsibility for our actions,’ Martinez said, ‘The strawberry beds suffered damage because no one had covered them against night frost.’ He mentioned several other examples. Martinez said, ‘If the strawberries are yours, you protect them. And if you have a promising plan you think is worthwhile and you can keep the earnings, you do it yourself and hire people to help you.’

He proposed splitting the land into parcels and renting them to the highest bidder to finance public expenses. Fertile lands would fetch a higher price than barren ones, giving everyone an equal opportunity to make a living. He also proposed introducing ownership so the islanders would feel responsible for their property. But with property, you need a medium of exchange or money. The islanders decided to use potatoes as money. Everyone needed potatoes. They had value, so they were good money.

Potatoes are bulky, thus difficult to carry, and they also rot. At the next meeting, Santiago Barabino proposed setting up a storehouse for potatoes and issuing paper money, which could be exchanged for potatoes when needed. So, you had banknotes of 1, 2, 5 and 10 pounds of potatoes. The Baratarians agreed. The notes had a date of issue and gradually lost their value to cover the storage cost and rot. If you returned the banknote to the potato storage after a year, you received 10% less. And because the issue date was on the banknote, buyers and sellers knew its value.

For several years, Barataria had banknotes representing stored potatoes. Their value declined over time to pay for the storage and the rot. Borrowers didn’t pay interest. If you had savings, you would lend them to trustworthy villagers if they agreed to return notes representing the same weight. The notes lost value, making everyone spend their money quickly and store items and food in their storehouses. The general level of opulence rose, but there were no poor or rich people. There were no merchants buying things at a low price to sell them at a high price. Businesses didn’t pay interest, and there were no merchants, so things were cheap in Barataria. The chronicle notes that the islanders acted as good Christians and helped each other.

Then Carlos Marquez had a new idea. He addressed Baratarians, ‘How many losses do housewives suffer from keeping food in their storehouses? We shouldn’t put our savings in perishable products, but money with stable value. We can back our money with something we don’t need and doesn’t deteriorate. The Pinus Moneta is a nut we can’t eat, and doesn’t rot,’ he said, ‘We don’t have to back money with a commodity of value like potatoes. The things we buy and sell give the money its value. If we do that, we can buy things when we need them and don’t have to store them ourselves.’

What a great convenience that would be. It seemed too good to be true. Diego Martinez argued against the proposal. He told his fellow islanders that a medium of exchange passes hands. It remains in circulation. But savings stay where they are unless those who are short of money borrow them and pay interest. You end up paying interest to use the currency you need to buy the things you need. His argument was to no avail. And that is the price of democracy. People often decide about questions they don’t understand.

Most islanders preferred to spend their time getting drunk in the pub instead of studying the issues of government. And if you are doing well, you can’t imagine that seemingly insignificant errors can ruin you. Marquez spoke passionately, while Martinez warned cautiously, saying things were fine as they were and he couldn’t foresee the consequences. That swayed opinions. The islanders switched to money backed by the Pinus Moneta. This money didn’t lose its value. That made it attractive to save money.

Suddenly, everyone tried to exchange their supplies for the Pinus Moneta, causing mayhem in the marketplace. Everyone brought everything they had to the market. But no one could sell their goods because everyone wanted money. That was until the company Barabino & Co came up with a plan. Barabino & Co. set up a bank with accounts that Baratarians could use for saving and making payments. Everyone could bring their money to the bank and receive an extra 10% after a year. The naive Baratarians agreed. They could have known there weren’t enough nuts of the Pinus Moneta to pay the interest. And they didn’t ask themselves how Barabino & Co. would generate the profits to pay that interest. With this borrowed money, Barabino & Co. bought goods from the islanders and deposited money into their accounts, but Barabino & Co. only purchased food and seeds.

The following spring, Barabino & Co. hiked food and seed prices. Most islanders paid more for food and seeds than they received in interest. They went into debt with Barabino & Co. With the profit, Barabino & Co. bought the next harvest and cranked up food prices even further. Soon, Barabino & Co. owned everything. Most were in debt and worked hard, but a few wealthy people lived off interest income. They didn’t work and lived a life of luxury on the interest on their accounts. The Baratarians needed money to pay for the items they bought from Barabino & Co. They had to borrow this money from Barabino & Co. and pay interest to use it. There weren’t enough nuts to pay back all loans with interest, so the islanders went further into debt year after year. They paid interest on money the bank created out of thin air, giving it to the wealthy. That is usury.

The Baratarians worked harder and grew more creative in earning money. The islanders invented, produced and sold more products, most notably wooden items made from the trees on the island. Not everyone could keep up, and more people lived in the fields. At least, the economy grew, and the Baratarians grew accustomed to luxuries they hadn’t had before. They had wooden chairs, boxes, ornaments, toys, outhouses, carts and tables. The islanders had managed without these items before, but now, they believed they needed them.

The change came with other unfavourable consequences. The Baratarians became agitated, deceitful, and immoral. Crime rose as everyone desired the luxuries that the rich enjoyed, and for which they didn’t have to work. Of their Christian faith, not much remained except an empty shell. They were busy making money. Then came the day the Baratarians had cut down all the trees on the island. They suddenly lacked the wood needed to make the tools for harvesting their crops, and they starved. That was the day the Pinus Moneta lost its value. After all, you can’t eat money.

Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations

The tale tells how devious acts contributed to an outcome most of us now deem desirable. By selling our souls to the money god, most of us have a better life than people in the Middle Ages. That improvement came with wars, colonialism, the slave trade, pollution, and miserable working conditions, and ultimately, it could bring the end of human civilisation. With the help of saving and investing, capitalists build their capital. Capitalism is about making sacrifices in the present by saving to have a better future via investing. It also led to a mindless process called competition via innovation and economies of scale. Economists call it creative destruction.

In the original tale, the wood didn’t run out, but the British rediscovered the island to find a class society much like theirs. The story tells how devious acts contributed to an outcome most of us now deem desirable. By subjecting ourselves to this system of trade and usury, most of us live a more agreeable life than people in the Middle Ages. It came with wars, colonialism, the slave trade, pollution, miserable working conditions, the destruction of communities and societies, and, eventually, the end of human civilisation. With the help of saving and investing, capitalists build their capital. Capitalism involves making sacrifices in the present by saving to have more in the future via investing. You can always do better. It promoted competition via innovation and economies of scale. But there is no ultimate goal, a vision of Paradise, only creative destruction without end.

The Baratarians were in debt, worked hard and were creative. Those who couldn’t keep up became homeless. As there was never enough money to pay back the principal with interest, the Baratarians went deeper into debt, worked even harder and became more creative by inventing and selling new products, producing an economic boom that ended in starvation once the trees were gone. It looks like the problem we face. The Earth’s resources are finite, and interest accumulates to infinity. Our money becomes worthless once there is nothing left to buy or sell.

Adam Smith, the founder of modern capitalist thought, claimed that pursuing our private interests promotes the public good. A baker doesn’t bake bread to serve the community but to make a living. It is why we have something to eat. The baker doesn’t want to lose customers, so he bakes what they desire. Otherwise, they go to his competitor. Smith believed it would work out well as humans are moral creatures. We temper our behaviour as it affects others. Therefore, moral relativists could argue that we don’t need public interest. The private interest will do just fine. But it is not how markets operate. We may have ethical values, but markets never have them. The least scrupulous usually wins the competition, so the greater evil usually wins in the markets. We have found that out and now want governments to oversee the markets.

Factory owners didn’t consider the plight of the artisans they put out of business or the miserable working conditions of their workers. They would have gone out of business if they had done so. Moral considerations don’t drive business decisions, so psychopaths end up in high places in corporate management.2 These psychopaths in business provide us with harmful products like cigarettes, prostitution, gambling casinos, and semi-automatic rifles. They expand their market by advertising their wares. A merchant will say, ‘If I don’t supply the market, someone else will, so why not profit from death and destruction myself?’ The merchant then claims liberty is the highest value, and restricting markets equals oppression, thus the ultimate evil. Why not let everyone buy cocaine and semi-automatic rifles? It increases GDP. These are the morals of the merchant we now live by.

Without self-interest and trade, we would be poorer, and poverty was Smith’s primary concern. Increasing production was the way out. Self-interest and trade were the tools to achieve that. It succeeded marvellously. Since the Industrial Revolution, production increases have lifted billions of people out of poverty. Adam Smith argued:

  • The division of labour drives production increases. If you specialise in a trade, you can do a better job or produce more at a lower cost.
  • A market’s size limits the division of labour. Transport costs limit market sizes. Energy cost drives the volume and distance of trade.
  • Merchants preferred precious metals as money. It enabled them to store their gains, allowing them to wait for opportunities to make financial profits.

Producers produce items at different times, in different locations, and in different quantities than consumers need. That is why we trade. Traders bridge those gaps by storing, transporting, and dividing goods. Trade promotes large-scale production and labour efficiency, so fewer people provide for our necessities. That allows for more fanciful products and services and industries, thus a higher standard of living.

The evil empire of trade and usury

Economic and financial power translates into military power. The Europeans didn’t finance their conquests with taxes but with the profits from their colonial enterprises. No one likes to pay taxes, but everyone loves a profit. The scheme thus became an unprecedented success. Venture capitalists paid for the first ships, hoping to find new trade routes and riches. And they found them. The Europeans reinvested their profits, so their capital grew, and their financial and military strength increased.

After the bourgeoisie had taken control of the British government during the Glorious Revolution, the British state became a venture of the propertied class, like the Dutch Republic already was. The Dutch Republic, run by merchants, was the most successful and wealthiest nation at the time. The British imported knowledge of Dutch governance by appointing a Dutch governor as their king. In the following centuries, Great Britain became the world’s largest empire.

The British bourgeoisie benefited from a functioning state and was willing to pay for it. The storyline is that taxation became legitimate as it had the consent of the taxed. The British bourgeoisie didn’t like to pay for corruption or ineptitude, so the state’s performance improved.3 With its secured and enlarged tax base, the clamp down on corruption and ineptitude, the invention of modern banking, including a central bank, trust in British financial markets improved, and Great Britain could borrow more at lower interest rates.

It helped Great Britain to defeat France, a country with twice as much wealth and twice as large a population. In France, the wealthy didn’t pay taxes, and the government was always short of funding. France defaulted on its debts several times. The French government was inept and corrupt, which made lenders unwilling to lend to it. The British economic successes, thus having a large market, low interest rates, and high wages, helped to ignite the Industrial Revolution.

During the Napoleonic age, several European countries modernised their governments into modern bureaucracies, with career paths based on qualifications and merit. The British later also modernised their administration, aligning it more with the rational principles of government that other European countries had adopted after the French Revolution.4 The benefits of the division of labour imply it is better to let bureaucrats run bureaucracies and businesspeople run businesses. You don’t let government bureaucrats run a business, nor do you allow your businesspeople to run the government.

The United States followed a different path. When the Founding Fathers set up their new state based on the modern principles of their time, they were ahead of Europe. They introduced regular elections for the president and parliament and a separation of powers between the administration, parliament and the judiciary, thus creating checks and balances to prevent dictatorship or mob rule. The US also became the first democracy. All free men had received the right to vote by 1820.4 Several European countries later followed suit.

The US administration, however, didn’t become a modern professional bureaucracy at first, and the US government remained plagued by corruption, cronyism, and the presence of unqualified individuals. Politicians gave their supporters government offices when they won the election.4 In 1881, a disgruntled man who had campaigned for US President Garfield and sought a diplomatic job as compensation shot the president. Appointing people for political reasons had become unthinkable in most of Western Europe. Modernisation efforts in the US began in the 1880s, took decades, and never fully succeeded. Political appointments are now making a comeback.

The founding fathers had set up the United States as an oligarchic republic run by the propertied classes, similar to Great Britain and the Dutch Republic. Rather than leaning on a clean government like the British elites, the American elites learned to employ corruption, for instance, via campaign financing, bribing judges, and funding think tanks that advise the US government. After World War II, the United States emerged as a superpower, and the gold-backed US dollar became the currency used in international trade. To finance its military, the US began to run deficits in the 1960s and ended the exchangeability of the US dollar for gold in 1971. The US dollar then became the de facto reserve currency, most notably because oil-exporting countries continued to accept the US dollar.

The US dollar’s reserve status allowed the US elites to employ the productive capacity of the rest of the world for their empire. Foreign countries delivered goods and labour in exchange for US dollars, which the United States printed out of thin air. The US financial elites in institutions like the World Bank and the IMF pushed developing countries into US dollar debts, which made them depend on exports to serve the US empire. As a result, the domestic economy of the United States began to suffer from the Dutch disease. The Dutch natural gas exports created a demand for the guilder, which drove up the Dutch currency and made Dutch industries uncompetitive in the 1970s.

The Dutch remedied the issue in the 1980s by making a collective national agreement between the government, employers, and unions to keep wage increases below those of its competitors for several years. Demand for the US dollar, however, increased, not because of exports, but because of foreign nations being dependent on it, pushing up its value and eroding the competitiveness of American manufacturing. And the US didn’t need to correct that issue, because of the US dollar’s reserve status.
The US dollar has become an international store of value, and so has US government debt. There was even pressure to go into debt, to satisfy the global demand for US dollars. As a result, deficits have escalated further, and the American economy depends on controlling the world’s financial markets. The American empire is now the Evil Empire of Trade and Usury, the Babylon of our time. However, the end of an empire doesn’t always turn things for the better.

Latest revision: 7 August 2025

Featured image: cover of The Miracle Island Barataria

1. Het wondereiland Barataria. Silvio Gesell (1922).
2. 1 in 5 business leaders may have psychopathic tendencies—here’s why, according to a psychology professor. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic (2019). CNBC.
3. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. Francis Fukuyama (2011).
4. Political Order And Political Decay. Francis Fukuyama (2015).

Coin hoard

What is money?

nivtricLeave a comment

Why do we have money?

Money was invented because trade would be difficult without it. For example, if you are a hatter in need of legal advice, then without money, you have to find a lawyer who craves a hat. That is unlikely to happen. Maybe there is a fisherman dreaming of a hat, but he can’t give you legal advice. Maybe there is a lawyer in need of a hairdo instead of a hat. With money, all these problems disappear like magic. You can buy the services of the lawyer so that she can go to the barber. After that, the barber can buy some fish so that the fisherman can buy a hat from you.

Despite these mind-blowing advantages humans didn’t need money for a long time because they lived in small bands and villages where everyone depended on each other and everyone helped each other. This meant, for example, that when a fisherman needed a hat, you would make a hat for him, and if you needed anything, someone else would provide it to you. You did someone a favour so that he or she was obliged to do something back. Villagers produced most of what they needed themselves. Trade with the outside world was limited and was done with barter.

Uses of money

Later cities, kingdoms and empires emerged. People living in cities, kingdoms and empires didn’t know each other so it became difficult to track whether or not everyone was contributing. Favours and obligations didn’t suffice. They were replaced by a formal system for making payments and tracking contributions and obligations. Commerce and tax collection needed a means of payment as well as administration. It is therefore not a coincidence that writing and money were invented around the same time in the same area. The earliest writings were bookkeeping entries. Money has the following uses:

  • buying and selling stuff (payment) so money is a medium of exchange
  • saying how much something is worth, so money is a unit of account
  • keeping track of contributions and obligations (saving and borrowing) so money is a store of value.
catdog
Nickelodeon character CatDog

Money being a medium of exchange as well as a store of value is like your pet being a cat as well as a dog. The result is not really a success. The parts of the pet may often quarrel, for example, because the dog part wants to play while the cat part wants to sleep. If someone keeps some money for a rainy day and does not spend it, others cannot use this money for buying stuff. And this can be a problem. A simple example can explain this.

Imagine that everyone decides to save all his or her money. Nothing would be bought or sold anymore. All businesses would go bankrupt and everybody would be unemployed. All the money that has been saved would buy nothing because there isn’t anything to buy anymore. This is a total economic collapse.

In reality, it doesn’t get that bad as people always spend on basic necessities like tablets and mobile phones, and perhaps food. When people only spend money on necessities there is an economic depression, which is not as bad as a total economic collapse but still very bad. Saving can make you poorer, but only when there are too many savings already. Savings are used to invest in businesses and hire workers to make products and services. Only if there are more savings than investments, does money remain unused.

The value of money

Money has no value when there isn’t any stuff to buy or when there aren’t any other people to trade with. Imagine that you get the offer to be dropped alone on a remote and uninhabited island in the Pacific with 10 million euros. Probably you would decline the deal, even if you can keep your mobile phone. It is other people and stuff that give money its value. But how? The answer is remarkably simple. The value of money is just a belief.

People are willing to work for money and sell their stuff for money. And because others do this, you do the same. For example, you may think that euro notes have an appalling design as well as an unpleasant odour, but nevertheless, you desire to own them because other people want them too. The euro’s value is based on the belief that other people accept euros for payment.

This is just a belief as the following example demonstrates. Suppose that you wake up one day to hear on the news that the European Union has been dissolved overnight. Suddenly you may have second thoughts about your precious stockpile of foul-smelling unstylishly decorated euro banknotes.

You may ask yourself in distress whether or not your precious bank notes still have any value. What is the value of the euro without the European Union? You may find yourself hurrying to the nearest phone shop in an effort to exchange this pile of banknotes for the latest model mobile phone.

And to prove this point even further, suppose that the phone shop gladly accepts your euros. Suddenly they become desirable again and you may start to have second thoughts about that latest model you are about to buy. It may not remain hip for much longer, so you may change your mind again and prefer to keep your precious euros because there may be a newer model next month. So, because the shop wants your euros, you wants them too.

Types of money

At first, money was an item that people needed or desired. Grain was one of the earliest forms of money. Everybody needed food so it was easy to make people believe that others accept grain for payment. In prison camps during World War II cigarettes became money because they were in high demand. Even non-smokers accepted them because they knew that other people desired them very badly. For that reason, cocaine can be money too.

Wares like grain, cigarettes and cocaine have disadvantages. They degrade over time so they aren’t a very good store of value. This makes them a great medium of exchange because people won’t save them. An example can demonstrate this. Imagine that apples are money and you want to buy a house. A house costs 120,000 apples but your monthly salary is just 2,500 apples of which you can save 1,000. It takes 10 years of saving to buy a house. Soon you will discover that apples rot and that you will never be able to buy a house. Then you will spend all your apples right away.

Saving is difficult with apples. This is where gold and silver come in. Gold and silver do have not much use, but humans were always attracted to shiny stuff. Gold is rare so a small amount of gold can have a lot of value because some people feel a strong desire for shiny stuff. Gold and silver coins can be made of different sizes and purity so that they are suitable for payment and can be used as a unit of account.

More importantly, gold and silver do not deteriorate in quality like apples, grain or cigarettes. They do not even rust after 1,000 years. This makes gold and silver an excellent store of value. But this should make us suspicious. A perfect cat makes a lousy dog so a perfect store of value can fail the test for being a good medium of exchange. People can store gold and silver so that there is less money available for buying and selling stuff. And this can cause an economic depression as we have seen.

Governments create money too, for example by printing “10 euro” on a piece of paper. Governments require by law that this money should be used for payments and taxes. This makes people believe that others accept this money too. Government money is called fiat currency or simply currency. The authority of a government is limited to the area it controls so in the past government currencies had little value outside the country itself unless this money consisted of coins containing gold or silver.

In fact, another reason why gold and silver are attractive as money is that the value of gold and silver does not depend on the authority of a government. This made gold and silver internationally accepted as money. In the 19th century, most government currencies could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold. This is the gold standard. The gold standard boosted trade because gold was internationally accepted as money.

Most money is debt

Debts can have value and so debts can be money too. This may seem strange or even outrageous, but money is just a belief. For example, money is the belief that you can exchange a hat for money and then exchange this money for legal advice. Hence, if you believe that the debtor is going to pay, you can accept his or her promise to pay as payment. And if others believe this too, you can use this promise to pay someone else.

So if the fisherman promises you to pay next week for the hat you just made, you could say to the lawyer that you expect the fisherman to pay in a week, and ask her if you can pay in a week too. The lawyer could then ask the same of the barber and the barber could ask the same of the fisherman. If all debts cancel out then there is no need for cash. Most of the money we currently use is debt. In most cases, debts don’t cancel out and there are many more people involved so it would be complicated to keep track of all debts and savings. That is where banks come in.

Featured image: Close up of coin hoard CC BY-SA 2.0. Portable Antiquities Scheme from London, England (2010). Wikimedia Commons.

Other images: Nickelodeon character CatDog, Sméagol character from The Lord of the Rings [copyright info]

Mohammed receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel

Religious Experiences and Miracles

nivtricLeave a comment

The Jewish people still exist after 2,500 years, while they have not had a homeland for most of the time. That is a remarkable feat. Then Christianity replaced the existing religions in the Roman Empire in one of history’s strangest twists. Somehow, the message of personal salvation through Christ caught on. In the third century, Manichaeism emerged as a new religion. It taught that there was a struggle between the good spiritual world of light and the evil material world of darkness. The prophet Mani, who grew up in a Jewish-Christian Gnostic sect, claimed to have received revelations meant for the entire world, which were to replace all existing religions. It instantly became a spectacular success, spread everywhere in the known world, and could have overtaken Christianity, but it didn’t. A pivotal, and possibly decisive, moment was the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 AD. He made Christianity the favoured religion in the Roman Empire.

A few centuries later, a small band of Arab warriors established an empire that stretched from the Atlantic to India, spreading the new religion of Islam, in an even stranger and more rapid historical development. Is it a realistic scenario that the supposedly illiterate camel driver Muhammad became a crafty statesman after seeing an angel telling him he came to deliver messages from the God of the Christians and the Jews? After Muhammad’s death, his followers went on to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires. At the same time, Manichaeism made a one-way trip into the dustbin of history, while in the third century, it appeared to be on the verge of becoming the world’s leading religion. So, why did Mani fail and why did Muhammad succeed? Historians can explain it, but it is an account of what happened rather than an explanation. The question remains, could it occur without someone pulling the strings?

So much can happen, and what happens now has once been extremely improbable. Your reading this text here and now seems highly unlikely a few decades ago. Think of all the things you could have done instead. Or you could have been dead. Yet, you wouldn’t consider your reading this text a miracle. Proselytising religions like Christianity and Islam have a built-in inclination to grow. That may not be the ultimate answer. Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same deity. Our universe could be a simulation, and someone could have planned it. But who is to say it couldn’t have happened otherwise?

When Islam arrived on the scene, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians in the area already believed in an all-powerful creator. Muhammad had met them on his travels, so he was familiar with these religions. Before that, Christianity had faced an uphill struggle. While the Roman state suppressed this religion, pagans left their gods behind and accepted the Christian God as the only true God. And they did so in large numbers.

That begs for an explanation, even though the conversion of Romans to Christianity was a gradual process that took centuries. The Romans occasionally half-heartedly persecuted Christians and executed a few thousand of them over the centuries, not for being a Christian but for not paying their respects to the Roman gods. Despite that, the number of Christians increased 2-3% per year between 30 AD and 400 AD. Each Christian may have converted just one or two persons on average. Over time, exponential growth enabled Christianity to grow from about 100 followers in 30 AD to 30 million by 400 AD.

Such a gradual and steady growth over centuries was somewhat unique for a religion, and so was the blitz conquest of Islam later on. Most people in the Roman Empire, and everywhere else for that matter, lived miserable lives. The promise of an eternal blissful afterlife may have been too tempting for those poor, wretched souls to resist. However, the most often cited reason for conversions was stories about the miracles Christians performed.2 Only in the Middle Ages did the sword become the most compelling Christian argument as Christianity spread further and became integral to European politics. That was not the case in the Roman Empire, so miracles and stories about them were crucial.

An early miracle was Jesus’ appearance to a few followers after his crucifixion. The New Testament mentions miracles that the disciples allegedly performed. These accounts may be exaggerated, but the theme of miracles remains a consistent one in Christianity to this day. The Roman Catholic Church has a rich folklore surrounding relics that are believed to possess magical properties because they are said to have been touched by Jesus. The most famous relics are the Crown of Thorns in Paris, the mysterious Holy Grail, the chalice from which Jesus is said to have drunk, and the Shroud of Turin, a piece of linen cloth with a supposed image of Jesus’ face.

Many of the miracles attributed to these relics are unverifiable or can have other causes, such as luck, but a few cannot be easily explained away. The Roman Catholic Church keeps a record of them. On message boards, people tell stories about prayers heard and miraculous healings. Many of these stories may result from chance or other causes, such as a misdiagnosis or someone seeking attention by lying, but that is not always the case.

A recurring theme is the appearance of the Virgin Mary and other miracles related to her. Thousands of people have seen her. She appeared several times in Venezuela. She revealed herself to Maria Esperanza Medrano de Bianchini in 1976, who received exceptional powers. She could tell the future, levitate, and heal the sick. In Egypt, Mary appeared at a Coptic Church between 1983 and 1986. Muslims have also seen her there. There have been many more Virgin Mary appearances. The most notable sequence occurred in Portugal at Fatima between 13 May and 13 October 1917.

The grand finale was on 13 October 1917, when the Sun reportedly spun wildly and tumbled down to Earth, radiating in indescribably beautiful colours, before stopping and returning to its normal position. Some 40,000 attendants witnessed Mary’s performance. They had gathered because three shepherd children had prophesied that the Virgin Mary would perform a miracle on that date and location. Faking this was hard to do, considering the technology available in 1917. A lack of holographic equipment would have made the effort challenging, not to mention changing the location of the Sun, which is a large ball many times larger than Earth, thus making it difficult to move around. And somehow, the Sun only moved in Fatima, which can only happen in virtual reality.

Jesus also appeared a few times, but less frequently than the Virgin Mary. An intriguing account comes from Kenneth Logie, a preacher of the Pentecostal Holiness Church in Oakland, California, in the 1950s. In April 1954, Logie was preaching at an evening service. During the sermon, the church door opened. Jesus came walking in, smiling to the left and the right. He walked right through the pulpit. Then he placed his hand on Logie’s shoulder. Jesus spoke to him in a foreign tongue. Fifty people witnessed the event. Five years later, a woman in that same church suddenly disappeared. Jesus took her place. He wore sandals and a shiny white robe. He had nail marks on his hands, which were dripping with oil. After several minutes, Jesus disappeared, and the woman reappeared. Two hundred people have seen it. It was on film as Logie had installed film equipment, because strange things were happening.3 Such events can convince people that the message of Christianity, even though it may seem highly peculiar, is correct, as Zeus and Thor failed to show up and perform some tricks.

Mary and Christ are part of a folklore where genuine experiences mix with mental cases seeking attention or con artists profiting at the public’s expense. Usually, there are no 40,000 witnesses, verifiable evidence, or camera footage of what occurred. The Vatican is troubled by the self-proclaimed seers, fortune tellers, prophets, and messengers who believe they have a special bond with the Virgin Mary or have weeping Madonna statues, which they may or may not have prepared to weep. These people could be delusional, crave attention or, like the televangelists in the United States, be after your money. That is not always the case. If you have a religious experience, don’t suffer from mental conditions impairing your judgment, and can’t think of naturalist explanations, you should believe what you see. To quote Shakespeare’s Hamlet, ‘There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’

Latest revision: 5 September 2025

Feature image: Mohammad receiving his first revelation from the angel Gabriel. Miniature illustration on vellum from the book Jami’ al-Tawarikh, by Rashid al-Din, published in Tabriz, Persia, 1307 AD. Public Domain.

1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.
2. The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. Bart Ehrman. Simon & Schuster (2018).
3. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher From Galilee. Bart Ehrman. HarperCollins Publishers (2015).

The Religion Paul Invented

nivtricLeave a comment

Paul’s reasoning

How did Christianity become the baffling religion it is today? A cloud of obscurity surrounds the first decades of the Christian movement. A few things we do know. Jesus started Christianity, but Paul of Tarsus, better known as Paul the Apostle, turned Christianity into the religion we know today. Paul was first a Pharisee who devoutly observed Jewish religious laws before becoming a follower of Christ. One thing we should know about Paul is that the scriptures were precious to him, far more valuable than the facts. Truth, in his view, is thus not according to the facts like Jesus taught, but according to the scriptures.

It is a matter of the utmost importance as it explains why Christianity has become the religion it is today. In Paul’s view, everything about Christianity should have a scriptural foundation. Paul’s education as a Pharisee is probably the reason why. We shouldn’t underestimate the consequences. Probably, everything about Jesus that is ‘according to the scriptures’ is a fabrication. The label ‘according to the scriptures’ should serve as a red flag, signalling ‘invented by Paul.’ Hence, ‘Jesus rose on the third day according to the scriptures’ means ‘Paul made up that Jesus rose on the third day.’

Christianity began as a small Jewish sect founded by an end-time prophet who claimed to be the Messiah. Many Jews awaited a Messiah but expected a strong leader who would liberate the Jewish nation from Roman occupation. Jesus didn’t live up to their hopes, and the Romans had him crucified. That wasn’t the end of Christianity, but just the beginning. Likely, he later appeared to some of his followers, thus demonstrating that he lived eternally and was the Son of God. It is hard to see how Christianity could have survived otherwise. That gave the Christians new hope and inspired them to carry on, which is the origin of Pentecost and the belief in the Holy Spirit.

Paul, whose name was first Saul, was initially a fervent persecutor of Jesus’ followers. When travelling to Damascus, he received a vision. According to his own words, a bright light flashed from heaven, knocking him to the ground. He heard a voice he identified as Jesus accusing Saul of persecuting him. Today, we would call the experience a psychosis. The encounter temporarily blinded Saul. His companions led him to Damascus. There, Ananias, a Christian disciple in Damascus, restored Saul’s sight and baptised him.

It was a turning point in his life and an event that shaped the future of humankind. It was a personal calling. His response was not to consult any human being (Galatians 1:16). In other words, he didn’t go for a reality check. Instead, he went his own way and started preaching among the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16). Paul preached his own distinct gospel, which he claimed was revealed to him. He didn’t meet with most of the other Apostles for fourteen years (Galatians 2:1-10). He saw Simon Peter after three years, as well as Jesus’ brother (Galatians 1:18-19). His mission succeeded. Indeed, God works in mysterious ways. In The Triumph of Christianity, Bart Ehrman attempts to reconstruct Paul’s reasoning, the foundation of Christian thought.

His vision proved to Paul that Jesus still lived as his followers claimed. Jesus had died, so he was resurrected, Paul reasoned. And therefore, he must be the long-awaited Messiah. That posed a few theological problems for Paul. The Romans had humiliated Jesus and executed him. So, why did Jesus have to die? Paul came up with an answer. In many religions, including Judaism during Passover, people sacrifice animals to please the gods.1 The Gospels agree that Jesus died either on the day of Preparation for the Passover or on Passover itself. Now, that doesn’t seem like a coincidence, so that pushed Paul’s thinking in this direction. Paul must have known that Jesus believed himself to be Adam. Adam led us out of Paradise, and Jesus would return us to it.

And so, Paul reasoned that Jesus came to undo what Adam had done. The Jewish religion doesn’t place such a dramatic weight on the Fall. It definitely wouldn’t justify human sacrifice, or worse, murdering the Son of God. To make the argument work, Paul inflated the significance of the Fall to epic proportions. That is why Christianity, contrary to Judaism and Islam, places such an emphasis on sin. Paul turned Jesus into the sacrificial Lamb of God. In his view, we are all sinners because Adam was, but Jesus saved us by sacrificing himself. It is a novel idea not found in the Jewish religion and scriptures. The Jewish religion opposes human sacrifice, and it is even blasphemous to think that God would require it, so this is alien to Jews, which made Paul’s innovation truly remarkable.

The Lamb of God

The sacrificial lamb is a revolutionary new type of saviour, someone who, by his death, provides redemption to his followers. According to Mark, Matthew, and Luke, the disciples shared bread and wine during the Last Supper. And Jesus said, ‘Take it; this is my body,’ and, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ It is outside the Jewish tradition and part of the sacrificial lamb imagery. So, did Jesus say these words, or did Paul invent them? Probably the latter. Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 11:23-26),

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

It begins with, ‘For I received from the Lord.’ In other words, the origin of this tradition lies in Paul’s imagination rather than in Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. It is unlikely that Jesus laid that out in detail during Paul’s psychosis. It is therefore noteworthy that the Gospel of John fails to mention it. The Gospel of John comes from a separate tradition outside Paul’s influence, and its sources may include an eyewitness account. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul writes (1 Corinthians 15:3-5),

For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Simon Peter and then to the twelve Apostles.

It is another for-I-received sentence, so many scholars believe these things have been passed on to him, possibly by fellow Christians as a creed, and that it reflects the earliest Christian beliefs.2 However, the repeated reference to the scriptures makes the supposed creed suspect of being a product of Paul’s creative ingenuity. He has proven himself capable of writing a beautiful poem about love, so it wouldn’t be that hard for him. A passage in Isaiah can explain the ‘died for our sins according to the scriptures’ (Isaiah 53:4-6),

Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

You need not be too imaginative to apply this to Jesus, even though Isaiah had someone else in mind. Concerning the raising on the third day, Hosea 6:2 may come to assistance, as it says, ‘On the third day he will restore us.’ The larger the body of scriptures, the easier cherry-picking becomes. What comes next is even more unbelievable. Jesus supposedly appeared to more than five hundred at the same time. Paul was such a fantasist that it is unlikely to have happened.

Paul tried to answer the question of why God made Jesus sacrifice himself, which is a profoundly troubling question for a Jew. As a religious Jew, he looked for the answer in the scriptures, so facts were of secondary importance. Facts were never that important in religion, and are something scientists may care about. And humans are creatures who live by stories rather than facts. So, think of it as doing God’s work rather than lying. That was probably how Paul viewed it as well. And for good reason, because his diligent work united the early Church, a tremendous achievement.

And so, we should be cautious in concluding that Jesus believed that he had to die for our sins. The Gospel of John fails to mention that Jesus died for our sins, even though John the Baptist calls Jesus ‘Lamb of God’ twice in the first chapter. It is a modification. The other Gospels don’t mention this when describing the same event. It is an image from Pauline theology, so there is no chance that John the Baptist said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God.’ And despite the author of John supporting the claim that Jesus died for our sins in his letter, that could be telling. After all, the letter expresses the author’s opinion, which Pauline theology could have influenced, while the Gospel of John is his redacted account of the evidence handed to him.

Jesus’ teachings were another reason that led Paul to believe Jesus had to die for our sins. So, what did Jesus teach? It was the forgiveness of sins. Mark tells us that John the Baptist preached baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and that he baptised Jesus (Mark 1:4-9). These also became Jesus’ teachings. Jews already practised ritual immersion and washing for purification, spiritual cleansing, and as a conversion rite, so John the Baptist operated within an existing tradition.

Jesus began as one of John’s followers, a fact the Gospels don’t mention for obvious reasons. Instead, they say that John was the messenger sent ahead of Christ, thereby fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah (Mark 1:1-3), which suggests that it is contrived. John the Baptist probably had said something like, ‘Jesus comes to take away our sins’ rather than ‘Behold, the Lamb of God.’ Nevertheless, it gives a possible answer to the question of why Jesus had to die, so the conclusion Paul arrived at is not far-fetched.

It leaves us with the question of why Jesus willingly went to the cross. Mark tells that Jesus was deeply distressed and troubled. He prayed that the cup would be taken from him (Mark 14:32-36), which is a very different prayer from the one in John (John 17), where he hopes to await great glory. Many scholars think it is a later embellishment to explain that Jesus died in accordance with the will of God. Such an explanation doesn’t presume an intimate relationship between God and Jesus. And so, it probably was Jesus’ choice, perhaps made under duress. Jesus could have avoided the execution by rescinding his claims of being the Messiah and the Son of God. That would be denying the truth and his mission. Believing himself to be Adam and eternally living, he expected to survive, which emboldened him and strengthened his resolve. And don’t forget what people do for love.

Defining the Christian faith

It must have been God’s plan to save Her/His people this particular way, thus by Jesus sacrificing himself, Paul reasoned further, so observing Jewish religious laws is not critical for your salvation, nor do you have to be a Jew. Jewish religious laws being irrelevant is another truly revolutionary thought for a Pharisee. Prophecies in the Jewish Bible foretold that all the nations would accept the God of the Jews. To Paul, Jesus was the fulfilment of these prophecies. After all, Jesus was Adam, the father of humankind. And from Adam, God made all the nations that inhabit the Earth (Acts 17:26), so Jesus’ message applied to everyone, not just Jews alone. There were already Gentile Christians, and Paul preached to them, so that was his view from the outset. Making them all adhere to Jewish religious law proved ‘a bridge too far’ and could hamper the spread of the religion. Paul then concluded that rejecting false gods and having faith in Jesus would be enough. Paul believed he was God’s missionary to spread the good news.1

Paul was a knowledgeable scholar of the Jewish scriptures, whereas the other Apostles lacked such education. He shaped the beliefs of the early Church and the future Christian religion by establishing the theological foundation of the Christian faith. Paul defined God’s image as the Father, the amalgamation of the Jewish Yahweh and the Christian Mother Goddess. The product of this processing became a hybrid, a Father who can give birth. Jesus also became a hybrid, thus a human who is also godlike. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says, ‘Abba, Father.’ (Mark 14:36) More than a decade before Mark, Paul used that particular phrasing twice (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:6). You read Paul’s words in the Gospel of Mark, just like at the Last Supper. Also, ‘The Twelve’ is a quote you can trace back to Paul. Likely, there were no twelve disciples. It took Paul over a decade to work out his new theology, and perhaps also countless sleepless nights.

Around 55 AD, Paul wrote that the woman came from man (1 Corinthians 11:7-8), thereby reasserting the biblical account from Genesis rather than the original Christian account, of which we can still find traces in the Gospel of John. In Galatians, Paul also writes that God sent His Son, who was born of a woman (Galatians 4:4). That Jesus was born of a woman is a statement of the obvious. You don’t need to stress that, even if God is Jesus’ Father. If God were a Father, this factoid could be one of the most uninteresting disclosures of the entire letter. The original Christian teaching, which Paul rejected, was that Jesus was Adam reincarnated, so he was born of God. Paul claimed that Jesus is the Son of God the Father rather than Adam. And so, he was born of a woman rather than God. For once, Paul didn’t lie by stressing that particular factoid. It is also noteworthy that he didn’t write ‘born of a virgin.’ Had he known about the virgin birth, it would have been worth mentioning. By 55 AD, no one still knew of this miracle.

For religious Jews, it was blasphemy to say that God was a woman who married Jesus. And so, it was probably also problematic to many Jewish converts, while non-Jewish converts had no problem with it. The Greek and Roman traditions had several gods and goddesses who had children with humans. For the Greeks and the Romans, God being a woman marrying a man who lives eternally is not that spectacular, while it is unthinkable for Jews. That made uniting the early Church an enormous challenge. To Paul, a former Pharisee, the truth of the scriptures mattered more than the facts. He could dismiss the Christian creation story and change God’s gender. Not having been a firsthand witness and not having spoken much to the other Apostles for the first fourteen years further helped him maintain his independent and particular perspective.

And the facts created problems that Paul’s imagination could solve. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul writes, ‘It is reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans don’t tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud!’ (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). Possibly, a scribe watered down this controversial fragment during copying. The man could have slept with his mother. After all, it is sexual immorality that even pagans don’t tolerate. And the Christians in Corinth took pride in it, a remarkable response. Perhaps they believed this man followed the example of Christ.

Paul’s unique advantage, which placed him in the position to shape Christian theology, was that, apart from being an educated scholar with a dedication to the scriptures, he was not a firsthand witness to the events. To him, reality had to fit the scriptures rather than the other way around. He never met Mary Magdalene and Jesus, and didn’t meet with the other Apostles during the first years of his preaching. It allowed him to develop his theology, independent of the facts.

As a Jew preaching among the Gentiles, he could bridge the gap between the Jewish and the Gentile views. His theology appealed to Jewish Christians because it connected Christianity to the Jewish scriptures and portrayed Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. At the same time, his preaching tours and letter writing provided him with a support base among the Gentile Christians as well, who saw Jesus as godlike. Pauline theology also shares that view. God the Father became the compromise between Yahweh and the Mother.

Paul’s diligent labour provided Christianity with an elaborate theological foundation, and his view could also bring unity within the early Church, so it prevailed. Most people only knew Jesus from stories, and few knew the details, so it was possible to sway opinions with false stories. It is still possible today, even when everyone can check the facts. The outcome of Paul’s intervention was that Christianity became an entirely different religion. Had a close follower of Jesus from 30 AD accidentally run into a time portal and leapt into the future, he wouldn’t have recognised his religion already in 100 AD, let alone today.

Spreading the good news

Paul dedicated his life to spreading the good news that faith in Jesus could save everyone. During his many travels, he founded Christian communities. His mission wasn’t easy. His message caused upheaval, and Jews expelled him from their synagogues several times. But he was determined and worked hard. Paul’s gospel of personal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, which is open to everyone, appears to have caught on. However, it is a most peculiar tiding and not something you would believe if you had grown up in a different tradition, whether you were Jewish or worshipped other deities. And so the success of Christianity begs for a better explanation. Ancient sources indicate that stories about the miracles Christians performed made people convert.1 An example was the healing of a lame man when Paul and Barnabas visited Lystra.

We have to take Paul’s word for it, as he is a likely source. Had we not known Paul as a fantasist, it appears plausible. In other words, it might have happened. In other words, it might have happened. As the story says, Paul had healed the man. The Lycaonians then concluded Paul and Barnabas were gods in human form. The priest of Zeus brought bulls and wreaths to the city gate, as he and the crowd wished to offer sacrifices to them. Paul and Barnabas explained that they were only human and messengers of the good news that the God of the Jews, who had made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them, had decided that all nations should no longer go their own way. And the proof, they said, was that the Jewish God had shown kindness by giving us rain from heaven and crops in their seasons and filling our hearts with joy (Acts 14:8-18). The proof thus was the seasons, the crops and the rains, and, of course, joy in our hearts. The seasons and the crops had always been there, and people had been joyful before, so that didn’t prove much. Hence, it must have been the miracle of healing that made people believe Paul’s unusual message.

Paul’s activities led to a riot in the city of Ephesus. Demetrius, who made silver shrines of the goddess Artemis and brought in a lot of trade for the local businesspeople, realised the consequences of Paul’s good tidings. He called the craftsmen and workers in related occupations together and said, ‘You know, my friends, we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray many people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited and that the goddess herself will be robbed of her divine majesty.’ When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting, ‘Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!’ Soon, the whole city was in an uproar (Acts 19:23-29). A mob seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s travelling companions from Macedonia, and brought them to an assembly in a theatre.

A city clerk managed to quiet the crowd in the theatre. He said, ‘Fellow Ephesians, doesn’t the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? Since these facts are undeniable, you should calm down and not do anything rash. You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. If Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. They can press charges. If there is anything further you want to bring up, it must be settled in a legal assembly. As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of what happened today. In that case, we would not be able to account for this commotion since there is no reason for it.’ After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly (Acts 19:35-41). Had it been untrue, then the spread of Christianity would have become a bit harder to explain, but not impossible. More upheavals were to come in the following centuries.

Contending versions of Christianity

During the first centuries, there were several versions of Christianity. It highlights contentious issues, suggesting that early Christian beliefs differ from those of Christianity today. Christianity today is not what it originally was. Likely, the alternative views are closer to the original faith in some aspects. The most well-known deviant groups were the Nazarenes, the Marcionists, the Ebionites, and the Arians:

  • The Nazarenes continued to observe the Jewish religious laws. Jesus didn’t intend to abolish them. It was Paul who came up with that idea.
  • The Marcionists taught that the God of the Gospel is the true Supreme Being as opposed to the evil Jewish God. Indeed, God is not the deity the Jews invented.
  • The Ebionites didn’t believe that Jesus was divine, nor did they think that he was born of a virgin. That is also correct.
  • Arianism emerged around 300 AD. The Arians opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, which was not an original Christian teaching.

Except for the Arians, these groups existed from an early period. Christianity was in flux. That began to change once the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine invited all the bishops in the Roman Empire to the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It was the first effort to create a uniform Christian doctrine. More efforts followed. The Roman state promoted the Church’s official teachings. Consequently, other strains of Christianity faded into obscurity.

The Gospels of the New Testament date from 70 to 100 AD, more than forty years after Jesus preached. Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John did not write the Gospels attributed to them. The Apostles were uneducated Aramaic-speaking Jews, while the authors were Greek-speaking, educated Christians who were not eyewitnesses. Scholars believe Mark, Luke, and Matthew are collections of stories that circulated among early Christians. The author of the Gospel of Luke even says so (Luke 1:1-4).

Whenever someone retells a story, details change, new episodes emerge, and parts get omitted. And the story may become more spectacular. And so, the Gospels likely don’t accurately tell what happened. Several letters in the New Testament have unknown authors, despite claiming to be from Peter, Paul, or another well-known person. Jesus’ brother couldn’t have been the author of the Epistle of James because it contains no inside knowledge about the relationship between God and Jesus. And we don’t have the original texts of the New Testament. The oldest preserved copies date back to the second or third centuries AD. Scholars have used these copies to reconstruct the original texts as much as possible.

Latest revision: 10 October 2025

Featured image: Head of St. Paul. Mosaic in the Archbishop’s Chapel, Ravenna, 5th century AD (public domain)

1. The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. Bart D. Ehrman (2018).
2. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher. Bart D. Ehrman (2014). HarperCollins Publishers.

A society on pillars

nivtricLeave a comment

Identity groups building society

Dutch society long centred around identity groups based on religion or ideology. The Dutch call it pillarisation. A pillar is vertical, so it encompasses several social classes. Social life was within your identity group, and you had few contacts with outsiders. These pillars had sports clubs, political parties, unions, newspapers, and broadcasters. Roman Catholics and Protestants also had schools and hospitals.

The pillars of Dutch society were Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Socialist, with each about 30% of the population. The Protestants themselves consisted of smaller groups that had their specific views on the Bible. The remaining 10% of the Dutch were liberal. The liberals were less organised and opposed pillarisation, but they also had political parties, newspapers and broadcasters.

Strong communities are close-knit, have shared norms and values based on ideology or religion, and come with social obligations. The pillar organisations focused exclusively on their communities. Similar arrangements existed in other countries. In the Netherlands, none of these groups dominated society. And the shared Dutch identity and the state made these relationships cooperative. In other words, Dutch society was built on pillars.

The Dutch were famous for their tolerance, which was at times close to indifference. The identity groups accepted each other and minded their own affairs. After 1800, there was no civil war in the Netherlands, nor was there a threat of one at any time. Leadership played a significant role. The leaders of the pillars were willing to compromise, and the members merely followed their leaders, guaranteeing peaceful relationships within society for two centuries.

Still, identity issues dominated Dutch politics from time to time. On 11 November 1925, the cabinet fell when the Catholic ministers resigned after Parliament accepted an amendment introduced by a small Protestant fraction to eliminate the funding for the Dutch envoy with the Vatican. A Protestant government fraction supported the amendment.

None of the identity groups on its own was able to dominate society. Instead, they had to make deals with each other. On religious issues, Roman Catholics and Protestants found each other. For instance, they arranged that schools and hospitals could have a religious identity and that the state would fund them like public schools and hospitals. The Socialists made deals on working conditions and social benefits with Catholics and Protestants.

Pillarisation in the Netherlands began to take shape at the close of the nineteenth century. One could say that Dutch society was built upon the pillars. They allowed groups with different views and cultures to coexist peacefully and gradually integrate. From the 1960s onwards, the pillars began to lose their meaning, and the Dutch became one nation. Pillarisation can be helpful if you believe in a shared destiny, for instance, the nation-state, but have different backgrounds that prevent integration in the short term. In this sense, it works like multiculturalism.

Pillarisation can be helpful if people believe in a shared destiny, for instance, the nation-state, but do not share a common background. In that case, everyone can live and work together with the people they feel comfortable with. Cultural and religious differences may subside over time. But as long as these identities remain distinct, people can organise themselves accordingly via pillars, and in doing so, avoid conflict.

Latest update: 19 May 2023