Did Jesus actually teach the Golden Rule? Or was it foisted on his lips after his death by later followers?
I have already written a couple of posts on the Golden Rule in the two places it occurs in the New Testament, Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 (see: Little-Known Aspects of The Golden Rule as Found in the Sermon on the Mount and Did Jesus Give the Sermon on the Mount? ). Normally the rule is phrased like this: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I noted, though, in the Greek clauses are reversed. A literal translation of Matthew’s version would be “Everything you want other people to do for you, you likewise do for them,” to which Matthew, importantly, adds “for this is the Law and the Prophets” (meaning that if you follow this rule, you will be following the entire will of God as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures; Matthew 7:12); Luke is quite similar “Just as you wish people to do for you, do likewise for them” (Luke 6:31; Luke does not add the bit about this being the entire law and prophets).
In this post I want to ask whether it’s something Jesus actually said. Most people would say, “Of course he said it; everyone knows he said it!” But historians don’t base their judgments about the past on what “everyone knows.” They look to see if the evidence and reasons for thinking so are compelling or not.
As it turns out, there have been a number of scholars – possibly a small number, but highly respected and influential ones – who have maintained Jesus did not say it, including arguably the most important New Testament scholar of the 20th century, Rudolph Bultmann.
I think there are two arguments against Jesus having given the Golden Rule that need to be considered before deciding the issue. The first is that, contrary to what people normally imagine, Jesus did not come up with the saying himself. It is widely attested among ethical teachers in antiquity (as I’ll show). Since it was a virtual commonplace, wouldn’t it make sense that later followers of Jesus simply attributed it to him as the kind of thing ethical teachers typically said?
Here are some other instances of the Rule as stated in various ways by other teachers, some of them long before the days of Jesus. In most of these formulations (but not all of them), the Rule is expressed negatively (stating what should not be done) rather than positively (as opposed to Jesus’ formulation).
The rule is found, for example, among the ancient Greeks many centuries before Jesus. One of the characters described by the Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century b.c.e.) says, “I will not myself do that which I consider to be blameworthy in my neighbor” (the negative form); and the Greek orator Isocrates (fourth century b.c.e.) said, “You should be such in your dealings with others as you expect me to be in my dealings with you (the positive form). The saying was present in Eastern cultures as well, most famously on the lips of Confucius (sixth century b.c.e.): “Do not do to others what you would not want others to do to you.”
Nearer to Jesus’ time, the Golden Rule was endorsed (in various forms of wording) in a number of Jewish writings. For example, in the apocryphal book of Tobit, we read, “And what you hate, do not do to anyone”; and in an ancient Jewish interpretation of the book of Leviticus, we find “Do not do to him (your neighbor) what you yourself hate.”
Perhaps the best-known expression of the rule in Jewish circles, however, comes from the most revered rabbi of Jesus’ day, the famous Rabbi Hillel. A pagan approached the rabbi and promised he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could recite the entire Torah to him while standing on one leg. Hillel had a simple response, with a negative phrasing of the Golden Rule, very similar to what Jesus says in Matthew 7:12: “What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor; that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.”
Jesus, in short, was not the only teacher of his day who taught the Golden Rule, or who thought that the essence of the Law of Moses could be summed up in the commandment to love.
So did Jesus say it? Or was it a commonplace simply attributed to him, as to other great ethical teachers?
My view is that the fact the Rule appears on the lips of others does not mean that it did not also appear on Jesus’ lips. On one hand, if it’s the kind of thing ethical teachers often taught, then that might make it *more* likely Jesus said it. Even so, on the other hand, it is not multiply attested in independent sources as something said by Jesus. It’s true that it is found in both Matthew and Luke, but as often happens, they are therefore getting the saying from a common source, usually called “Q.” And so we have *one* source for Jesus saying it (it’s not, e.g., found in Mark or John) – and we would certainly be more confident that it was authentic if we had more attestation of it. On the yet other (third) hand, the saying does encapsulate so well the ethical teachings of Jesus otherwise that it really does sound consistent with what he would teach. Or does it?
The other argument against Jesus teaching the Golden Rule is not one you would expect. Bultmann and others have argued that the saying is precisely contrary to Jesus’ ethical teaching. The reason is interesting and worth considering. In this interpretation “Do to others as you would have them do to you” is predicated on a tit-for-tat guide to behavior, a rule that says that each person should gauge their behavior precisely on how others behave toward them.. In a sense it is like a positive formulation of the “lex talionis” (literally means: “law of retaliation”) that is, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Morality, here, is based on reciprocity, with your actions determined not by what is “right” or “commanded by God,” but by what the other guy’s doing or that you want him to do. In other words, it’s all about *you*: and what *you* want. In Bultmann’s words, that is nothing more than the “morality of a naïve egoism.”
Whoa. I never would have thought of it like that.
But now that I have thought about it, I don’t think it’s right. The lex talionis is not about how you are to behave in your daily life. It is about judicial punishment for crimes and transgressions. Contrary to what is usually thought, the notion of “an eye for an eye” is NOT meant to be a harsh and strict rule. It is a law that demands mercy instead of excess; the principle is that the “penalty should fit the crime.” If you knock out my tooth, I’m not entitled to lop off your head. The punishment needs to be commensurate.
A very big difference between the lex talionis and the Golden Rule is that the “law of retaliation” indicates how you are to deal with someone who has acted in violation of true moral or legal principles. The Golden Rule is not that at all. It is looking forward to how to treat others, not looking back on how they have treated you; it is a proactive rule not a reactive one, proscriptive not retributive. That is, it is meant as a guide for how you are to live; it is not a response to how others live.
If you ask how should I treat others, you already have the answer. You treat them the way you want to be treated, or like to be treated. You don’t need a list of rules and detailed guidelines, and even if you have such a list, there is more to morality than simply following the prescribed does and don’ts.
The goal of life is to care for others, help others, love others. That is repeatedly Jesus’ teachings: the summary of the law ass “love your neighbor as yourself,” the parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable of the sheep and the goats. Help others in need. Do you need laws to show you what to do if someone is in need? No, just put yourself in their shoes. If you were hungry, what would you like someone with plenty of food to do for you? If you didn’t have a place to spend the night, what would you like someone with a spare room or at least room on the floor to do for you? If you were ill, what would you like someone who was in vibrant health to do for you? If you were being attacked by someone else, what would you like a bystander to do for you?
We all inherently know what we would like others to do for us. Even when we’re not in need. We like people to treat us kindly, to compliment us, say nice things to us, encourage us, support us, boost our spirits. We should do the same thing for them. That should be the guide of all our behavior, in all our relationships and in relationship even for others we don’t know, strangers, people living far off, those who are in need wherever they are.
That’s the Golden Rule. I think it’s perfectly consistent with Jesus’ teachings, that in fact it encapsulates his teachings. And I think he said it.
No. It’s not likely that Jesus did not teach the Golden Rule. But Buddhists and Confucianists may have preceded him with the same idea several centuries earlier. The authors of Luke, Matthew, and Q were tuned in to sources that may have touched on the Golden Rule. The Buddhist scripture Udana Varga 5:18 says “Look where you will, there is nothing dearer to man than himself; therefore, as it is the same thing that is dear to you and to others, hurt not others with what pains yourself.”
Texas recently passed a law that requires public schools to display donated “In God We Trust” signs. For reasons you outlined in this post I believe either version (positive or negative) of the Golden Rule would have been a better, more proactive choice.
I’ve always thought that the Golden Rule (and for that matter the second of the Great Commandments) leaned a little in the direction of “fairness” and “equality” vs altruistic, self-sacrificing love. In other words, don’t treat others, in general and overall, as less important than yourself but neither, in general and overall, treat others as more important than yourself.
Although there are special occasions that may call for martyrdom or heroism, that’s not ordinarily what’s required. It’s more like equality.
And I agree with that point of view.
Do you think that’s a reasonable interpretation of what Jesus meant?
On the other hand, I do think Jesus meant the golden rule to be “proactive” and not just reciprocal. One should look for occasions and ways to love and help others. But not go so far as to not look out for one’s own well-being too.
I don’t think Jesus is making calculations, but has something pretty basic in mind. Treat others the wya you want to be treated.
Hi Bart, Please entertain my tangent. Do historical Jesus scholars agree that Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself”? I honestly do not know the answer to that question. But I imagine that the Golden Rule derives from that commandment.
Yes, there’s widespread agreeent on that. It’s a quotation of Leviticus 19:18.
The Golden Rule would seem to be a normative ethic for an ongoing society. And the fact that it appears in ethical traditions as diverse and unrelated as Confucianism and the Yoruba indicates it really requires no common metaphysical underpinning. So how would you square it with Jesus’ overall apocalyptic viewpoint? Where do you see the link?
Thanks!
Yes, for a message to work in an apocalyptic context does not require it to be particularly apocalyptic itself. In Jesus’ case the saying functioned to explain what God wanted of people; those who did his will would be allowed to enter the kingdom. For everyone else: brutal destruction!
“The Bible” says, and many before and after it,
that the golden rule is:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Perhaps many priests interpreted that rule literally and found justification for their sick fanaticism.
Of course such perverse minds want to
“that they do it themselves”!!!
I think the rule should be unambiguous and read:
“Do unto others as you would,
that they also voluntarily do to you.”
Am I thinking wrong?
What do you think about this?
I think the idea is that you should treat others the way you want yourself to be treated; Jesus was less concerned about issues of free will and obligation than with action and results.
What’s the best multiply attested teaching/parable/event that supports the claim that Jesus said something very like the (positive) version of the golden rule?
Or are you saying that something like multiple attestation comes from Jesus also giving the Great Commandment, and the Good Samaritan and the sheep and the goats parables?
Yes, what’s multiply attested most impressively is how this idea gets translated into a variety of sayings, parables, and so on. It appears to encapsulate so much else, and stands at odds with nothing that can be established as authentic.
I have long distinguished Morality and Ethics (probably incorrectly in some technical sense) as the rule-book approach to good behavior–thou-shalt and thou-shalt-not–and the ability to understand and apply fundamental principles on the fly in real time; and, when such principles come into conflict, to weigh their relative merits in light if the particular situation. The ethical approach is thus better when it comes analyzing complex problems, complexities of which the moral approach may not even be aware. The one demands thought, while the other forestalls it.
Do you see any significant difference between the golden rule and the second part of the great commandment?
Not really.
I engaged in studying about early christianiy after reading a mythicist article claiming that Jesus never existed.
The article insisted that in his letters Paul did not speak about a real human Jesus.
So I took all Paul’s letters and made my own “ gospel according to Paul” by extracting every reference to Jesus.
My first conclusion was that despite mythicist claims Paul obviously speaks about a human Jesus, with earthly brothers that was killed by “the rulers of this age” in Paul’s lifetime.
But one thing that struck me the most was that “ gospel according to Paul” ” does not include a single teaching, saying or so from Jesus.
To the Corinthians Paul states that he was “determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Cor 2:2).
Well , apparently , for Paul , “Jesus Christ crucified.” had nothing to do with sermons in mountains or plains , did he miss that part?
“The saying does encapsulate so well the ethical teachings of Jesus”
“That is repeatedly Jesus’ teachings”
“I think it’s perfectly consistent with Jesus’ teachings”
The problem is that we do not have ANY letter, writing or whatever by Jesus himself.
There is not such a thing as “the ethical teachings of Jesus” as something that we know for certain that comes directly from him as in the case of Paul and his letters.
What we REALLY have is “Jesus’s teaching according to Mark”, according to Matthew, to Luke and so on.
So the “consistents” (as in ““I think it’s perfectly consistent with Jesus’ teachings”) are internal , the fact that a certain saying is “consistent” with other “Jesus’ teachings” in the gospels could not be used to prove that “he said it.”
Did the man crucified by Pilate teached it all?
Maybe.
Maybe only part.
Maybe nothing, Paul Jesús is not a teacher at all ,and he is our earliest witness about Jesus.
Dr Ehrman,
You refereed to “Rabbi” Hillel. and Jesus was referred to as Rabbi as well. But we read of “priests” in antiquity and not Rabbis (to my knowledge)
Was there an official title of Rabbi in Jesus day? Is it believed Jesus earned that title at some point via studies perhaps?
Thank you,
John
The term was used, but it simply meant “my teacher.” Only later did it become something like a title (something a bit more like “Professor”)
Very interesting reading Bart. Thanks for posting.
In a way, I can see where Bultmann is coming from – for people who aren’t careful with their words, or who hear what they want to hear, the Golden Rule does have a certain transactional feel to it IMO. In my experience, many people wait for the other to perform the nice deed, before they respond in kind. I’m not sure I agree that the Rule is a guide for future action. It seems time independent to me.
A somewhat more turbocharged version of the Rule is in Matthew 5 around 38-42, where my reading is that Jesus is saying “do unto others something better than you would have them do unto you,” or at least something better than they were expecting. Now THAT would really be quite something.
This reminded me immediately of Mark’s quotation of the Shema which finishes with You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Then i saw you drew this in using Luke, and cited the story of the good Samaritan which is peculiar to him alone, while the loving your neighbour is also cited in Matthew, who adds for good measure, “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” which is how he reinforces in his sermon on the mount. Curiously, too, the settings for these sayings vary. With Matthew it’s the sermon “on the mount”, in Luke it’s on a “level plain”. With “love your neighbour” in Matthew it’s during Jesus’ last visit to Jerusalem, but with Luke it’s at an earlier date and circumstance when he then adds the Good Samaritan story. On the side, Matthew does allude to “eye for and eye” being payback justice: “”You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”
Interestingly, the Sermon is “on the mount” in Matthew but on the “level plain” in Luke, and loving your neighbour in Mark is during his last week in Jerusalem but earlier and in a different location in Luke. I’m struck how a “saying” can be permutated by each gospel author, which seems to suggest a primacy to “sayings traditions” over detailed narrative. The details of the sayings in the Sermons are also highly variable. I’m inclined to be sympathetic to these sayings being somewhat historical, or at least very much how the gospel authors wanted to remember Jesus, as best they could. On the side, Matthew seems to consider “eye for an eye” as something of a payback as opposed to measured response, given his citing Jesus saying “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” Luke makes a similar reference without directly opposing it to “eye for and eye” in his version of the Sermon. All fascinating.
Matthew 6:14-15 has a similar sound to the golden rule of “do to others” when Jesus is reported as saying – “if you forgive others when they sin against you, then God will forgive you, but if you don’t then you will not be forgiven”.
The rule of reciprocal actions is thereby given a divine input. There is no mention of inherited sin and Jesus, to my knowledge, never directly mentions the sin of Adam. Is the atonement therefore a doctrine that comes from Paul rather than Jesus of Nazareth?
I’d say that forgiveness is a very differnt concept from atonement. THe latter requires a payment of some kind; the former is freely given without payment.
The phrase must have been proverbial (Tob 4:15), though reduced to the neighbor Jew or the chaver/friend Jews (lechavercha לחברך as Hillel reading in hebrew). In the Messiah’s teaching, it is “for every man.”
In the case of Hillel, he teached to the gentile that the Torah is only this rule, even lying to the gentile that the rest of the Torah is only commentary, omitting the recognition of the most important commandment, that YHVH is the only God, which would be a important information for a new convert.
On the other hand, it is very poor to think that it is a rather selfish popular formula, and that it probably does not go back to Yeshua (Bultmann). But this love is not philanthropy or sentimentality, since it is framed in the Sermon on the Mount, and in it Christ is expounding the Christian aspect of it. The motive is to love God: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mth 5:48).
My problem with the Golden Rule is how *some people* would like to be treated. Or how *some people* would like things to be done unto them.
I’m talking about things like those that come up in the MeToo movement. Things like groping and things in that line of things.
It’s hard to believe that *some people* would actually take the Rule in this way, but I’m beginning to wonder.
Fact is, one person may not want to be treated the way another person wants to be treated. Sometimes not at all or not one little bit.
So what do we do or how do we word it so no one can twist or spin it around so it means something that it clearly doesn’t or was never meant to mean?
Yes, it’s an important point. The Golden Rule is NOT to treat others as they want or demand, but to treat them the way you yourself would want to be treated. Big dif!
Thing is these people want to be treated that way themselves, that is be groped and stuff like that. So they go around treating other people in that kind of rude and threatening way – believing that somehow they are following the Golden Rule or something.
Me thinks that they’ve never heard of and have no notion of the following verse:
1st Timothy 5-2: Treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
I don’t know if there is anyway of getting through to them however.
Thanks for reading