Loading...I’ve decided to excerpt a few bits of my book that is now in draft, to see what you think. Here’s how I’m planning to being it (the start of the Introduction)
******************************
Most people I know are moved by news of tragedy. A terrible earthquake, a drought, a famine, a flood, displaced people, innocent victims of military aggression, — we feel pity for those pointlessly suffering and feel a desire, even an obligation, to help, for example by donating to disaster relief. Almost never do we know the people in need; they are complete strangers, often in far-off lands, people we will never meet and possibly wouldn’t like if we did. Yet
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!
Have you read The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins? He discusses the genetic roots of altruism at quite some length, and might be helpful for a biological perspective on this.
Yes indeed. Great book, widely misunderstood (by those who think either that genes are thinking selfish thoughts or that he means people have to be selfish!)
Dr. Ehrman,
When you said “…these obligations for the most part extended only those who belonged to the Israelite community either by birth or immigration. I will argue that Jesus universalized this obligation”, do you mean the historical Jesus did that or rather that his later followers universalized that obligation?
I ask because, well, honestly, I don’t think Jesus really gave 2 flips about non-Jews. It’s not like he was ministering to gentiles, or trying to get their hearts right so they could enter God’s kingdom on Earth. That is how I see his mission: getting Jews to get their hearts right for the any second coming of the kingdom.
But he told his disciples specifically not to go to gentiles but to Israel only in Matthew 10:5-6. Other than the Roman centurion and the Canaanite woman (and boy was he rude with her!), there’s no evidence of Jesus or his disciples reaching out to gentiles. That became Paul’s gig.
I love your work, so my opinion on the introduction is that I’ll be headed straight for the chapter where you argue Jesus universalized good Samaritanism, because that is soooo not how I see Jesus.
Yes, I’m saying Jesus universalized it. His followers reversed course and focused almost entirely on members of the Christian community. Evidence for Jesus meaning everyone who is in need are passages such as The Good Samaritan and the Sheep and the Goats, as well as his comment that many will come from East and West into the kingdom where as Israelites will be left out. That passage in matthew is only in Matthew and represents Matthew’s view that Jesus ministered only to Jews so that when they rejected him the message could then go to “all the nations” (28:19-20). I do not think it is historical.
I need to come to your office hours for this one 🙂
Romans 15:8 – Jews were his mission. Acts 11:19 – his disciples ministered to Jews only. They learned that from Jesus.
The centurion and Canaanite woman were exceptions. Otherwise, gentiles weren’t allowed on the bus, let alone in the back of the bus.
The good Samaritan/sheep-goats are “love thy neighbor”, but Jesus was talking TO Jews to get THEIR hearts right so THEY could enter the kingdom. Much like when he said “the law says blah, BUT I say…”, or “if your eye causes you to sin”… He was trying to get Jews’ hearts right. Not gentiles’.
Importantly, we’re talking about the greatest thing ever – the kingdom! – and gentiles were DOGS to Jesus except in exactly 2 cases. His mission never included gentiles. That’s ethnocentrism and racism, not altruism.
Couldn’t your east/west example apply to unfaithful Jews? East/west isn’t a common metaphorical delimiter between Jews/gentiles.
Some of Jesus’ teachings of “altruistic obligations” have indeed been universalized, but I don’t think he intended them for the masses – he didn’t care about the masses.
Looking forward to your book, but you got some splaining to do.
🙂
I’d say there is a big difference between saying Jesus focused his mission to the Jews and saying that he had no concern for the welfare of non-Jews.disabledupes{0f0ebb13d67aabae06b727753d9de858}disabledupes
Does matthew teach that gentiles have to strictly obey the torah rules, if not, why does he say that the disciples were supposed to be more righteous than the pharisees? if the disciples were meant to go out and teach all that was commanded, then torah observance had to be top priority?
Good questions. Unforunately, it’s hard to come up with obviously correct answers.
that is such an interesting, yet feasible explanation.
when I lived in China.
The executive leadership which holds the power of the purse also, sets the objectives. & then each lower government level dilutes that to best fit that. So be the time the original order is implemented, well it tried to maintain the spirit of the Chairman or Premier’s directive.
The CCP is like a club, an exclusive club of the best in society. & that’s why the Central government is always bailing out local governments & State Owned Enterprises, tried but cost too much.
Like in the USA, local governments get money mostly or only from land sales & taxes.
So how I interpret your view. the Apostles were UNABLE TO gain traction to the Jesus Movement & St Paul & others found success with the “Gentiles” or pagans!
USA popular Christianity lost its aim- to follow Christ, be humble & love their neighbors!
but then where is the PROMISED comforter AKA HOLY SPIRIT.
As even Billy Graham 1988 interview with
Larry King asked that
I have to admit that I am skeptical about your claim but am interested in seeing your supporting evidence. On the surface, it seems to me that altruism, compassion, and sympathy are evident in some people and yet lacking in others regardless of religion. Which begs the question, does compassion and sympathy by themselves lead to charity and charitable acts or does charity rely more on the fulfillment of religious obligation? Other religions, such as Buddhism and Jainism, have strong beliefs about doing no harm. Also, several religions teach a moral obligation to help those less fortunate; e.g. tzedakah in Judaism, dharma in Hinduism, zakat in Islam, and the goal of Buddhism to alleviate suffering. Is Christianity the key to the west’s understanding of ethical obligation? From a historical-social aspect, I would agree. However, I will need to be convinced that Christianity actually makes an individual more charitable rather than charity coming from a person’s internal compassion and sympathy. Also, is it really altruistic when you are charitable because of a religious obligation? You have quite the challenge before you! By the way, I love your work! I am a fan!
Yup, it’s a challenge! I hope you like the book when it comes out!
I wonder if we’re going the other direction now. A significant portion of Christianity (at least in America) seems more concerned with protecting the border from needy people, protecting gun ownership and assigning blame to the disadvantaged rather than to those that create the disadvantage. Still, there are many who give time and money to help others. I guess life is full of contradictions.
Yup, Christians who hate others yet claim to be following Jesus make for an interesting phenomenon.
I am enormously sympathetic to your view. While some of the rhetoric is beyond disgusting, no nation lives up to Jesus’ radical ideals, and in the world in which we live nations need control of their borders.
It is my understanding that Ancient Greek culture included hospitality to the stranger. I didn’t understand that it was limited to only Greek strangers. Also, the temples dedicated to Asclepius were centers of health, where people went to be healed. This might possibly be the beginnings of hospitals. This is certainly not the strong emphasis on helping others of the type you are talking about but they are certainly a beginning of these ideas. Jewish ideas did not begin in isolation and the ideas they came up with were part of the ancient cultural milieu. Perhaps hospitality to the stranger was a part of other ancient cultures as well, and not just a Greek idea.
Yup, it’s an important feature of traditional Greek thought. But friendship with strangers was reserved for those who were in your same socio-economic class. In the Odysessy, e.g., that is brilliantly portrayed in numerous scenes.
I don’t think you mean “This sense of moral obligation to strangers in need is unnatural”. This has lots of unintended connotations.
It’s particular heard to know what ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ mean. Murder, rape and theft are quite ‘natural’ in one sense.
I think you just mean to say it is not determined, it is not inevitable. It is part of our culture, not our DNA. The world could easily have gone in a different direction.
Yes, by “natural” I mean it is not part of our physically imbedded human nature (our DNA) and is not part of the cultures out of which we emerged.
I really like this introduction and where the book is heading!
Dr. Ehrman,
Is the following correct?
Judgment and Tribulation, then, The Kingdom of God on Earth forever (The Synoptic Gospels)
Paul gave us 1 Thess 4: 16-17, The Rapture.
Then we have Pre-Tribulation Rapture, followed by Judgment and Tribulation,
then the Kingdom of God on Earth, as per Revelation for a thousand years only.
So the Jerusalem Church of Jesus’ disciples only would have been following what was later in the Synoptic gospels.
Pauline Gentile Christians in Thessolonika believed in the Rapture.
Then when Revelation was written, the Kingdom of God was cut from eternity to 1,0000 years?
There is no rapture in 1 Thess. 4:16-17. That is discussing Jesus coming to rule the earth and destroy his enemies, not to take his followers out of the world before al hell breaks out. I talk about that in my book Heaven and Hell.
And is 1 Cor. 15: 50-55 not the Rapture?
Is the Rapture in the New Testament?
Nope, it’s not talking about the rapture. It’s the return of Jesus for judgment and the resurrection of the dead. The idea of a “rapture” was invent by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s; no one had the idea before that. I have a lengthy discussion of this in my book Armaggedon.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus says some of you standing will see the Son of Man coming, but in John, you have to be born again to get into the Kingdom. 1 Cor 15:50 says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Paul, then, is the basis for Gospel of John. So, let’s get together as spirits and enter the kingdom; not, let’s get together with the resurrected to enjoy the kingdom on earth as the Synoptics say. Either Jesus is going to come to us on earth OR Jesus is going to rapture us to the Kingdom of Heaven. We do not need Darby for us to see the two different positions: The Synoptics vs Paul and Gospel of John.
1 Thess leaves us hanging in the air. But you are saying Paul’s scene finishes by us meeting Jesus in the clouds and I guess, Jesus brings us all back down to earth where the Kingdom of Righteousness under the Son of Man was supposed to be. In Gospel of Jn and 1 Cor, Flesh and blood doesn’t enter Heaven, which, then, must not be on earth.
And you went and complicated the contradiction?
I don’t even want to imagine the amount of reading and information necessary to tackle/argument a topic like that!!!
Looking forward to read it Prof!
It’s enough to make a grown person cry…. 🙂
I look forward to reading this book!
I heard a disturbing/baffling news story today about Hispanic Evangelic male voters choosing the current president elect because they believe he bases his policies on “Christian values”
I had to wonder which ones they had in mind? And why they believe he subscribes to them… but this isn’t a political forum, so I’ll just say thank you Prof. Ehrman for all the previous books, and keep them coming :).
Yes, that’s a widespread view among conservative Christians in the country. We definitely are not going to go into politics on the blog, so I’m just speaking descriptively here. But the view that is often articulated is that even though the president elect is not morally perfect himself, he endorses and promotes policies and agendas that embody the Christian vision (as these people see it).
But PLEASE — to everyone — I do not want us to go down the rabbit hole of discussing whether this view is right or tenable! I’m just saying what the view is.
@Steefen, for a better understanding of the Rapture and the related order of events at the End of Days, I highly recommend this informative review of the concept’s origin and development from the excellent “Religion for Breakfast” YouTube channel:
https://youtu.be/mvsjMuHkGBc?si=UhMJlivZCIocJYRH
I am very much looking forward to reading your book. My own altruism seems to have lessened considerably since I am no longer a Christian. After living over 70 years of strict adherence to the “cost of discipleship” I sometimes feel that I am “owed” some indulgence now and then, yet still feel guilty for even considering it when hundreds of children are dying of starvation every day.
It’s interesting how differently people react and feel after a major change like that… But having spent 70 years of giving, maybe you’ve done your share!
Bart,
You mentioned “important and intriguing parallel developments” in non-Western civilizations of altruistic acts toward the unknown other. What are some examples?
Buddhism.
I haven’t paid too much attention, but it wouldn’t surprise me if some Christians claim Jesus is completely unique in introducing the world to the idea of universal social obligations. In your reading, was there any particular author/book/source that you felt best counters this claim with Buddhism or some other example?
I’m afraid I don’t know of any. In my book I’m only talkinga bout the western world, not what was happening elsewhere.
Moism (not to be confused with Maoism!) in China developed in the 4th or 3rd century BC with a similar concept of altruism, according to the teachings of Mo zi (Master Mo). It was controversial since the Chinese had a very family-centric Confucian way of life, and accused him (maybe falsely) of putting strangers and family on equal ground when it came to moral action.
Reference has been made to Jesus’ encounter with a Canaanite woman, a gentile. In Elton Trueblood’s book THE HUMOR OF CHRIST this dialogue takes up an entire chapter. Trueblood makes a convincing argument that the conversation between Jesus and the woman was a refreshing form of humorous banter, consistent with deep compassion. He adds that Jesus must have laughed at the way in which she engaged in a witty dialogue. They both understood that the comment about gentiles being “dogs” was but a familiar phrase of Jewish racism. Jesus spoke it satirically as an epigram.
The passage is actually a healing story. Jesus in his kindness heals the woman’s daughter, an example of his altruism in reaching out to those in need; and in interacting with the woman so easily, without regard for race or religious affiliation. He exemplifies the heart of his gospel message. I want to learn more about his ethics and altruism, and thus look forward to reading your book, Dr. Ehrman.
Yes, Trueblood’s book was a breath of fresh air when it came out all those years ago. I do think in some places he saw more humor than was probably there….
Dr. Erhman, how do you reconcile Deuteronomy 10:19 “Ve-ahavtem et hager ki gerim hayitem be-eretz mitzrayim” (“Love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”) with your argument that the impulse to help strangers in need is embedded in our western moral conscience because of the teachings of Jesus? Or is it the Jewish teachings to which you are referring?
I believe this is talking about people who started out as foreigners who are not living as immigrantes in Israel. They are to be treated as fellow Israelites, not as enemies. Love your neighbor as yourself, in the OT, does indeed require altruistic behavior toward strangers, but only if they were Israelities or foreigners who had come to live among the Israelites (not outsiders)
I think helping others is enlightened self-interest. A straightforward example is disease. We should strive for everyone to have good healthcare. In fact we should demand that everyone has equally good healthcare everywhere. We risk losing our safe healthy lives if we don’t.
“fundamental transformation in the moral conscience of the West.:” “My argument is that the impulse to help strangers in need is embedded in our western moral conscience because of the teachings of Jesus. ”
2 weeks ago, I was talking to a Caucasian receptionist: & he said violence towards Asians is engrained into society. So I wonder how folks can protest China over whatever is going on in Xinjiang. When they can’t even treat their nonWhite neighbors civilly.
And then driving on major streets is ruthless & barbaric! [I’m a lifelong bike rider]
“the emergence of the Christian tradition, altruistic acts & the rhetoric connected with them focused almost exclusively on close genetic & social relations — principally family & friends, & less frequently, others “like us,” members of the same community & socio-economic class. ”
Before 1995, I was excluded in civil society & accepted that, so in frustration, I took off to dictatorship China, San Francisco’s sister city Shanghai largely until 2020, which had not only a complete infrastructure overhaul, but also a social transformation. SF just at least until 2016 participated in that real rise in cost of living 1997-2016 of 7x, without improving infrastructure while society relations continues to worsen.
In China, I lived that transformation to almost wealthy economy.
&in no where during that time was it as ‘I learned it growing up in the USA “God bless America”
I saw it folks working hyper ethics, inordinate pressure to be the best &work long hours!
The economic growth since 2008 has been declining & the current leader for recent time was trying to solidify his absolute rule over needs of the people 5 years vs over 20 years of hapless USA leadership continued.
Thank you, Dr Ehrman as you made me slowly understand the untruths of the teaching I grew up on fir 45 years.
In Hong Kong, nonWhites were treated poorly as 3rd Class citizens [remember most couldn’t even get UK passports b/f 199]. I thought HK was a perfect Capitalist society, only bettered by Singapore nation.
Well I lived in hK 2020 after frequenting since 1995 & I thought it was welfare state. Folks wanted to work industriously 2020 but HK leadership stupidity that declined because of the Pandemic. Which I take guidance from what Singaporean leadership did.
Now because of such incompetence in HK, they are overseen by a police executive & a NationalSecurityLaw
Hispanic Evangelic: president elect because his policies on “Christian values”