Loading...Here is another selection from the draft of my book, which, at this still early point, I am calling The Origins of Altruism: How the Teachings of Jesus Transformed the Moral Conscience of the West. This bit is the introduction to my chapter 6, which deals with how the early Christians began to change and soften Jesus’ ethical teaching soon after his death.I’m calling the chapter: “Transforming the Ethics of Jesus: Moral Discourse in Early Christianity.’
Let me know what you think.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Wow! Well done.
Looking forward to your book! I have just finished reading William Blackstone’s “The Problem of Religious Knowledge” — written 80 years ago. I know that philosophy and theology are easily entangled. Are you finding it challenging to keep any distance between the two?
My thinking on this is very likely colored by having grown up in the Christian-ized West. It would be interesting to compare contemporary moral standards across cultures. The evolution time and within cultures has to be due in part to where we are in Maslow’s hierarchy. But even then, might there be a genetic component? Some compassion gene that’s more prominent in one family tree than another? I can compare my family vs my husband’s family and see a very different attitude towards altruism, even though our economic circumstances are similar.
I like the response of comic magician Penn Jillette when someone tells him his atheism should lead him to rape and murder whoever he wants. “I DO rape and kill whoever I want, but the thing is I DON’T WANT TO rape or kill anyone, so I don’t.” You see, if you have to be told it is wrong to rape or murder someone your sense of morality is not very developed. That is where religion has done society a disservice: teaching people that morality comes from ancient writings, which often are deeply flawed, rather than reason guided by empathy.
Interesting response!
Not everyone in the camp of religion goes in for an “ancient writings”, or scripture-based command morality and takes the view that moral thou shalts and precepts are what makes for human decency. In his early religious writings the philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (whose initial higher education was received at a theological seminary, and who always identified as a Lutheran), just to cite one example, was of the view that love is the basal and natural religious feeling, and driver of human goodness, and obviates the need for what he termed positive moral doctrines and commandments. He held that operating out of sheer heartfelt love of God, rather than a sense of duty to obey divine directives, is a more natural form of religiosity, and ensures morally good conduct more effectively than a deontological morality that stresses the rules laid down in “ancient writings”. He made a distinction between what he termed the natural or affective, and the positive or made-up authoritarian elements in religion, and affirmed the former over the later. And of course there are many theologians on the same page, who stress love rather than authoritarian morality, such as open and relational theologian Thomas Oord.
Also looking forward to this book. So much to learn. Thanks for all your work. Life changing.
I have a question, what book of yours details the scriptures where today’s bible translations substitute the words “lord” or “god” for EL. I am trying to understand where scribes hid the fact that Yahweh was synchronized with the earlier Canaanite pantheon.
El is always translated Theos; Adonai is translated Lord; and Yahweh was called both. Yahweh is a name and the other two are nouns.
Very well said! Can’t wait to read the full book!
My impression so far is that you’re subtly hinting to American Christians that they’re not being Christlike when they support the deportation of immigrants. I don’t think it’s going to work though.
Well, American evangelicals may be so far gone in the right-wing politicization of their faith, and their culture-war mentality that seeking to make them aware of the glaring incompatibility of their anti-immigrant, and other unbenevolent attitudes with a Christ-inspired ethic of love may indeed be an unavailing exercise in telling it like it is; however, regardless of its futility in this case, truth telling remains both an intellectual and a moral imperative.
Jesus preached some very radical views.
He wasn’t interested in nation states, but rather in the kingdom of God ruling over all.
He taught things like turn the other cheek, which is almost universally ignored.
He taught things like ‘give up all your possessions’, which is almost universally ignored.
Yeah, I think you’re right.
Great post Bart, and thank you very much for making the point about conflicting moral codes. If there were one over-arching (divine) code-maker humans would want to be moral in similar ways, which we don’t. Unfortunately the William Lane Craigs of this world turn that argument round to claim that their version of god must be the true one, because their version of morality is the best one and is inspired by their version of god. They don’t seem to get that this is a circular argument, and you can’t prove anything with a circular argument, let alone god. But then all attempts to prove god are tautological.
Yes, my sense is that William Lane Craig is pretty sure his sense of morality is the divinely inspired one. On the other hand, I think that my own sense of morality is superior to all others. And, I suppose, so does everyone else, since if they thought some other view was better, they’d turn to *that* one!!
William Craig holds a version of what is called a voluntarist Divine Command Theory of moral right and wrong. The upshot of such a view is that *whatever* God commands – including, e.g., the slaughter of infants – is a moral obligation, *just in virtue of* being divinely commanded. This view is subject to an ancient problem – the Euthyphro dilemma, which Craig thinks he can side-step. The main implication here is that he thinks that no naturalist theory of morality can support moral realism (i.e. that there are objectively correct moral standards). And so he tars atheists with the charge that they have no way to support their moral convictions other than appeal to subjective inclination or cultural acceptance. He also thinks, of course, that there are objective ways to understand, through Scripture, what God wills.
Craig seems to me not to have properly come to grips, either with the long history of naturalistic ethical theories or with what is properly demanded of an objective moral theory. In short: there are, as Ehrman observes, objective and universal truths about human nature that have moral implications, whether or not we’re God-created or by evolution.
What would Jesus do? I’m thinking about hiding a migrant family in my attic for the next four years.
Yes, a lot of us may be doing that.
Can we be moral people yet maintain freedom? Morality seems to be in our conscience, yet we are influenced by the world. Judeo-Christian values seem to make sense, but we don’t necessarily agree on those either. When I was a young man, I wanted two wives at the same time! There was biblical precedent for my thinking! Society has decided that’s not proper. It really seems it’s just a crazy mixed up world!
Paragraph 1: uncertain about ‘millions of years’. From scientific accounts of chimpanzees’ behaviour, we know that they have a strong sense of ‘us’ and ‘others’ and are known to attack, kill, and eat members of other chimpanzee troops. It is reasonable therefore to think that pre-hominins, including our own non-human ancestors, could have behaved similarly. There is mixed archaeological evidence to support this as well. Suggest you qualify ‘millions of years’. Best not to overstate.
Anne
Humans do that still today. Evolutionary biology is rarely about what *every* member of a species does, and more about dominant characteristics that allow the species to emerge and survive. But I take your point well — I’ll make sure I’m saying what I really think.
This post makes me think about a cultural conflict closer to home….between Christian whites or settlers and the American Indian. Differences in the two cultures created conflict for hundreds of years, maybe up to today. For instance, many settlers considered Indians immoral or dishonest when they took food without asking. In most Native American cultures this was an accepted practice. If someone was hungry, they were allowed to take food, it wasn’t considered stealing. I had a great aunt who lived in Montana on a farm where many Native Americans lived near by. It was understood by everyone to leave your doors open, even if you weren’t home, to allow people who might come by to get food.
This is just one example of a cultural conflict between the two cultures.
Hi Dr. Ehrman
I look forward to reading the book!
Unrelated question: I remember some years ago, I think you wrote about a building (maybe a synagogue?) somewhere in Palestine, where you said it was possible to look down a hole or something to an area of the building in use in the time of Jesus. Could you tell me where and what that building was?
Ah, not quite. I was probably talking about the synagogue at Capernaum, a terrifically interesting archaeological site (you can see photos on the web), and often taken by tourists to be the very synagogue that Jesus went to in the Gospels; but it is actually a fourth century structure built on top of the older one from Jesus’ day; there are some of the stones from that older synagogue still visible, but the structure itself is the later one.
“Both egoism and altruism are written into our DNA.”
I’m having trouble with this one. “Egoism” I can see. Personal survival and success are at stake. But “altruism?” “Unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others?” (Merriam-Webster) (key word “unselfish”). It seems to me that altruism is a learned behavior, e.g., from the teachings of Jesus, rather than written into our DNA. Your thoughts?
I talk about this in the book. All species of animal need to have modes of mutual support in order to survive; if everyone wsa a separate entity without support from othres, they couldn’t get the resources needed in a hostile world with lots of competition. So humans have always had a need for altruism on some level, even if the motives for it are usually (arguably always) mixed with egoism. There’s a lot written about this in evolutionary biology, starting already with Darwin.
Thank you for tackling this thorny subject. After many decades as a committed conservative evangelical Christian I find it refreshing and liberating to have left the faith. Now I can consider arguments on both sides of issues such as this, no longer constrained by guilt for “giving room to the devil”, fearful of displeasing God. During those many years, I strove to follow Paul’s injunction found in 2 Cor. 10:4-6.—. Keep up the good work.
I have a question concerning the possible tie-in of Jesus’s morality with ritual purity beliefs. It’s a common view, and I would say misconception that Jesus dispensed with traditional Jewish ritual purity beliefs. He seems to have done so because of his association with people who were ritually unclean (something that certainly rules out the possibility of his being an Essene). But it’s my view that taharah, ritual purity, in tandem with apocalypticism, was nevertheless actually at the heart of Jesus’s program of belief and action. I would argue that Jesus didn’t reject the purity system in toto, but reinterpreted the concept of purity to apply the purity system in a deeper and more holistic way, to apply it also to our interior state, and he understood purity as proceeding from our inner being outward, not the other way around. His moral teachings, in this view, were about purifying people inwardly, so they could be sufficiently internally unblemished to be a part of the eschatological kingdom of God. I would be very interested to know, Bart, if you think my perspective holds any water at all, or if it’s all wet?
I’d say that concerns for ritual purity and moral purity are in a sense related, but generally refer to different things. That’s why it was possible to have done soemthing that brings ritual impurity without having committed a sin — e.g., by touching a corpse or menstruating. Jesus, I would say, had little concern for ritual purity and massive concern for moral purity. But I don’t think that suggests he tried to get *rid* of purity regulations, simply that he didn’t consider them hugely important.
Thank you for your reply. I agree that Jesus displayed vanishingly little concern with conventional “ritual” purity; and instead demonstrated, as you say, massive concern for moral purity. However, I think that the mentality of purity is nevertheless present in his morality, and ties in with his apocalypticism. I would argue that he seems to have thought in terms of purifying his followers morally in order to make their lives and character align with, and thereby help them gain admission to the eschatological kingdom of God. Purity thinking that ultimately traces back to the belief that the priests who officiated in the temple needed to be pure, as it were, like the angels, to be fit for the presence of God colors Jesus’s sense of the importance of being free of moral blemishes if one is to reside in God’s kingdom and presence. Admittedly this isn’t the same thing as being concerned with “ritual” purity and the impurity associated with touching a corpse or contact with menstrual blood, but I would speculate that it’s an understanding of morality, of inner purity, and of being qualified for the eschatological kingdom of God that is underlyingly influenced by Jewish doctrines of purity.
I saw what you did in your (approximated for my purpose!) “A Brief Reflection on Time”; so I’m thinking maybe “On the Origin of Altruism”? ;=)
Excellent!
The passage, from The Origins of Altruism delves into how morality has evolved over time through a mix of cultural viewpoints while considering the impact of Jesus Christ on morals. It discusses how various societies have developed their principles whether or not Christianity played a role in their formation—adding depth to the discourse on inherent instincts, versus cultural influences.
In todays world of shifting circumstances and evolving values and norms create challenges that are constantly changing and adapting to new realities. Technological advancements, like AI and the pressing issue of climate change bring to light the need for equity in considerations. Jesus teachings on morality still hold significance today in a world where secularism’s, on the rise and prompt us to reflect on their enduring relevance.
Jesus focus, on selflessness still impacts society today. Navigating it in our world with all its complexities and cultural differences poses practical challenges that are worth investigating further into real life scenarios depicted in the books introduction is intriguing and I am excited to see how it explores these ideas in more depth thank you for sharing this excerpt!