(16 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...In my previous posts I have been explaining in brief terms how people thought about “ethics” in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, that is, how they decided what kinds of human activities were best for themselves and for their society, how they were to interact with one another, what values and virtues they should hold and what values and vices they should reject.
Part of my thesis – which I hope to spell out in my next book – is that Christianity changed how people understood virtuous activity and the good life, how they urged people to behave, and why they did so. My argument will be the what we think of as the driving force of most ethics today is not at all what people in the world at large in antiquity thought. At all.
So far in these posts I’ve tried to show how pagans were particularly concerned with “well-being” or “happiness” as a guide for how to live. Jesus, however, rigorously adopted a Jewish view that the main criterion for behavior was concern for the other person, even if that person was a stranger, a nobody, or even an enemy. You won’t find *that* in Greek and Roman discourse.
But it was the center of Jesus teaching and became the linchpin of early Christian ethics. I pick up here where I left off in my last post. As I indicated there, the only way for anyone (whether Jew or gentile) to enter the “Kingdom of God” that was soon to appear was by
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!
behaving in ways he demanded. Jesus appears to have had very little concern with the cultic laws and purity regulations of Scripture emphasized by other Jewish teachers (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.). He had a minimal interest in sacrifices and ritual. He was instead concerned with the “love commandment,” which in our earliest account of his teaching (Mark 12:28-34), is presented as a double commandment, to love “the Lord your God” with your entire being as required by Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and to “love your neighbor as yourself” as enjoined in Leviticus 19:18.
In his ethical teachings, Jesus is quite clear: those who loved others – not in how they felt toward them but in how they treated them – would enter the kingdom. That meant being as concerned for others’ well-being as for your own. You feed, clothe, and house yourself. You are to do the same for others. Give to those who are in need. Even if it requires a personal sacrifice.
This act of love without condition was not to be directed just to fellow Jews, but to everyone. You are not to hate, hurt, or destroy outsiders, but act in ways that most benefit them. Your “neighbor” is the despised Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). You are actually to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43-48). When you are mistreated you are not to retaliate; if you are abused by others you should instead turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42). You are to forgive those who have hurt you just as God forgives you (Matthew 6:12). And you are to forgive them not just, say, “seven times” (i.e., a lot) but “seventy times seven” (Matthew 18:22).
Most surprising, Jesus proclaimed that this kind of behavior would bring salvation in the coming kingdom to everyone who practiced it – not only Jews but even pagans who worshiped other gods. Jesus claims there will be many who come from other nations who will enter into the kingdom when many Jews have been excluded (Luke 13:28-20). In Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31-46), it is the peoples from the pagan nations of the world who have never known about Jesus, let alone worshiped him, who are brought into God’s kingdom – precisely because they provided for those who were hungry, thirsty, homeless, in prison, and lonely. All those who refused to do so, regardless of ethnic identity or religious practices, are sent to a fiery death.
The love command of Jesus is repeated throughout the writings of his early followers, by Paul (Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14), James (James 2:8), the Didache (1:2; 2:7); the letter of Barnabas (19:5), and on into church leaders of the second and third centuries (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and so on). Even so, over the course of Christian history most readers of the Gospels have either claimed or assumed that Jesus’ radical teachings on love cannot be taken literally. These teachings are clearly impracticable on both the individual and societal level. But it is a very big mistake to think that Jesus was concerned with practicalities. He himself realized it was incredibly difficult to enact the principles he propounded: those with wealth are to sell everything and give the proceeds to the poor if they want to have “treasures in heaven.” But who can do that? Jesus himself said it would take a miracle: it would be “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” (Mark 10:25). And that’s just on the personal level. Jesus’ ethics could never govern large collectives. Any nation that based its foreign policy on the Sermon on the Mount would not last a week.
That was of no concern to Jesus. The end was coming very soon. What mattered was entering into God’s kingdom. To do that meant engaging in energetic actions to help those in need, even at great personal sacrifice. God was the God of the poor, and to be admitted into his reign required championing their cause.
Re: “The love command of Jesus is repeated throughout the writings of his early followers, by Paul (Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14)…”
Is it significant that, in Rom 13:9, Paul speaks of “καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή” (“any ἑτέρα commands”), and does so in an echo of the unexpected use of τὸν ἕτερον (instead of τὸν πλησίον, cf. Gal 5:14) in the previous verse:
“Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves τὸν ἕτερον has fulfilled the law (Rom 13:8).”
Interesting question. (Grammatical point in v. 9 it is singular — the alpha ending is feminine nominitive singular, not neuter plural, so “any other command”). It is usually thought that Paul uses hETERON in vo 8 because of the preceding MEDENI (keeping it indefinite) in anticipation of his actual quotation of Lev. 19:18 in v. 9, the PLESION. hETERON as you know is a pretty common word in the NT; if it were unusual then the use would be even more intersting here….
What level of certainty do you have that these teachings on love would have come from the historical Jesus, as opposed to be placed on his lips by later Christians/Scribes? These teachings definitely seem to be better attested that some other statements (for example him calling himself God or not). Just wanted to see where you stood on that historical point.
Secondarily, would your hypothesis drill down into if this was a Christian idea that developed in the 2nd century (post gospels), or one that was present even earlier (since Paul mentions concepts of love quite frequently as well).
Thanks for these extremely interesting articles – always a pleasure to read and discuss!
I think a lot of them go back to him; it has to be decided on a case by case basis of course — and that leads to problems. E.g., both the Parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Sheep and Goats are found in only one source. Ugh! Well, decisions have bo be made, and there are grounds for making them other than independent attestation. But the love sayings are so striking and numerous that some of them almost surely go back to Jesus, I would say. I certainly *consider* whether they were all put on Jesus’ lips, but some of them (Sheep and Goats) contain elements almost certainly not fabricated by others (the idea, e.g., that salvation could come to those who had never even heard of Jesus, let alone believed in him)
Jesus synthesis of the law and the prophets in 2 principles( love your God, love your neighbor) was extraordinary and original.
I would question , though ,two items : the Jewish main criterion for behavior was and is the concern for the public good, which includes their nation’s integrity. The family, the tribe ( the probable ” neighbor”),the nation.
Caiaphas said “it’s better that one dies for the people than that the whole nation should perish” ( John 11:50).
Secondly, the Jews never had a desire or a law to love their enemies. All the contrary.
Popular sayings such as ” if someone comes planning to kill you, hurry to kill him first” ( Talmud, Sanhedrin 72-A-B) are relevant to this day. Some ancient and recent wars of Israel were analyzed considering this Jewish view.
Turning even one cheek is,in Jeremaiah’s Lamentations 3:30, a willful devise to teach young, proud men an early lesson in humbleness should they fall in captivity, like Jeremiah did.
I would say that Jesus went over and beyond Jewish criteria, entering a totally new ethical landscape.
As much as I am extremely proud of my ” tribe”, I am well aware of the strong contrasts with Christianity.
I would say that is certainly true in (what I consider to be) the best parts of Judaism today, and in much of its history. But teh conquest narratives, e.g, have a different perspective (as do many Jews today, of coruse) (and many non Jews. People are people!). Passages such as Deut. 27:3 or, well, Psalm 137:70-10 may not be characteristic, but they certainly do give one pause!
Thanks! I looked at Deut 27:3 and couldn’t find why it is relevant. Do you mean that the Israelite ” conquest” of Canaan was objectionable? ( we now know historically that there was no conquest , just migrations, isn’t that the case?)
Typo(s)! I meant Deut 7:2 (Destroy every last one of them!!) And yes, I’m talking about biblical teachings, not reality on the ground. Though my sense is that reality on the ground usually wasn’t much better…disabledupes{b622f013c528df5aab35976cb71a87ab}disabledupes
Thanks!
This Israelite’s apologetic moment:
I’m sure they fought ferociously and barbarically like everybody else, whose gods were just as bloodthirsty, to frighten one’s enemies.
Perhaps most of the time Israel did better than others in treating their conquered peoples.
But attaching the grim reality of the most horrifying deeds to God’s command obviously came after the fact, when the books were written. Given the many humanitarian laws, some retrospective compunction and need of justification may have resulted, transferring the guilt to God.
Israel, though,was forthcoming describing their sins, confronting their errors.
We, Jews, *invented * guilt!
Ask my kids….😊
These were not ” teachings” for the future. They were accounts of the past.
The ancient God of Israel was absolute, from one extreme to the other. The word ” norah” נורא describing God means
” awesome”, “awful” and ” awe-inspiring”. Even in English, the words share the ” awe” particle.
To me,worst of all was the slaughter of 3000 Israelites – including brothers of the killers- by Levites after the Golden Calf incident, ordered by Moses ( Exodus 32:27:29). It was not ordered by God.Moses ordered it done to his own people.
Perhaps a true story that never happened.
I definitely don’t think it ever happened, at least as described.
“Secondly, the Jews never had a desire or a law to love their enemies. All the contrary.”
jesus commanded hate luke 14:26
jesus demonstrates his “love” for his neigbour by making her beg for crumbs. he doesn’t even say that she is a dog belonging to the israelies, he identifies her and her people as dogs.
https://www.abibledarkly.com/p/jesus-syro-phoenician-dog.html
jesus NEVER had a desire to love enemies matthew 25.31-46. your enemy is tolerated and you look forward to revenge, this is pretentious love. jesus was LOOKING forward to vengence when he has the opportunity.
giselebendor
the Jews never had a desire or a law to love their enemies. All the contrary.
Steefen
That goes back to Julius Caesar’s leadership style.
One way of ending his civil war was to reach out to his enemies who fought with Pompey the Great.
(Greco-Roman influence on the Jesus of the gospels)
Besides: eye for any eye makes the whole world blind – M. K. Gandhi
“ even if that person was a stranger”?
So why did Paul only help the Jerusalem “saints” (the word for christians in the early church)??
There were no poors in Corinth? No people in need in Macedonia-Ephesus-Galatia?
It was clearly easiest to collect money for the poors in the cities where Paul preached than to send the money to Jerusalem in a risky and costly voyage.
By the time Paul wrote his letters the christians were less than one out of a thousand across the empire, were they the only ones in need?
For Paul a Jerusalem “saint” (christian) deserved help but a Corinthian pagan did not .
Was it Paul that did not understand Jesus’s message ?
I agree that after Paul times , when the christians grew in numbers they also helped “strangers” ,people outside their communities, but there is no proof that it was so right from the start, so why to adscribe to Jesus the idea?
Last week I saw a homeless in a wheelchair begging for food outside the supermarket,in the chair’s back you could read clearly “IGLESIA DE JESUCRISTO DE LOS SANTOS DE LOS ÚLTIMOS DÍAS” (the mormones).
Is it altruism? or is it marketing?.
It’s more a matter of taking care of one’s own tribe, an almost universal inclination….
In light of the idea that the concern for strangers and nobodies was a Judeo-Christian innovation, I’m curious what you make of the various formulations of the golden rule that were around before Jesus. Some examples I have in mind are Zoroaster’s “That which is good for all and any one, for whomsoever – that is good for me. What I hold good for self, I should for all. Only Law Universal, is true Law.” And Confucius: “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Or as attributed to Laozi: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” One can find similar statements attributed to Thales and the Buddha as well.
Is the distinction that Jesus’ ethical teachings go further and prescribe more specific and extreme positive actions?
I don’t think I would say that Jesus was the most ethical teacher in history, no. There were other Jewish teachers as well who thought that love should be universal, not restricted to the family, friend, neighbor, or tribe.
I am also reminded of how much the prophets complained about the lack of regard for the orphans, the widows, and the taking advantage of the poor.
Even as Moses commanded love and charity, the people were, two thousand years ago, quite far from achieving these. This, I believe, is why Jesus so strongly reacted.
Jews lived then for 2000 years in Christian ( and Moslem) lands. It is from the Christian emphasis, as per Jesus, of a most enhanced view of charity, one that was finally widely practiced, that Jews also became closer to the Mosaic ideal. Today, it is said, from the top 50 world philanthropists, 15 are Jews, and they contribute universally,not just to other Jews. The fact that Moses commanded many things does not mean these became patrimony of the people.That took a long time.
Leviticus 19:17 says ” do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart”. Yet, the Second Temple was destroyed because of such hatred.
Leviticus 19:18 says “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone amongst your people”.Yet, revenge and grudges are ubiquitous in modern Israel, causing havoc. It’s sometimes blamed on the Levantine character.
Somewhat off topic. Where did the concept of baptism originate? In the gospels Jesus isn’t focused on baptism but on these virtuous ethics as you note in your post. Any book or article recommendations also appreciated.
I can’t remember if Joel Marcus’s book on John the Baptist deals with this, but it is usually thought that the Xn practice originated by Jesus associating with John, being baptized by John, an dprobably continuing on with a baptism ministry of his own, at least early on.
Thank you! I also found a guest post from Joel Marcus on the blog that talks about the book.
Although the context of some of Jesus’s more extreme teachings was the imminent end of the age, the underlying principles are still worth considering and implementing. Question: the parable of the Good Samaritan is unique to Luke. Is there reason to think it really goes back to Jesus other than it seems consistent with his teachings in general? And because we want it to be something Jesus would say?
I”ve wrestled with that a lot. I’d say that the sentiment is certainly attested in Jesus’ established teachings — e.g. the Sheep and the Goats, also singly attested but with clear elements of dissimilarity….
What kind of religious or spiritual experience do you as a NT scholar think was behind Jesus’s absolute emphasis on the love commandment, ie, inspired it? A humble and absolute obedience to God’s law as Jesus understood it? A special understanding of and relationship with an unconditionally loving God? Insight that this is what God’s imminent kingdom would be like?
As an apocalypticist he could accept many of the unpleasant immediate consequences of living that way. But given his apocalypticism, what about his experience made love the central concern and not something else?
I’m especially interested in whether Jesus could be seen as some kind of mystic, eg, someone who felt extremely strongly connected to God and others—maybe even to the degree of selflessness?
My sense is that it origniated with his understanding of Scripture as interpreted by the fact that the end was coming soon, that God was the God of all people, that God’s love could estend to all people, and that to enter the imminent coming kingdomm, people needed to behave as God wanted and modeled.
Scripture has a wide variety of messages — and by no means are all of them loving. How or why would Jesus have fastened on our imitation of God’s universal love as his interpretation?
He appears to have thought it was the most important thing.
At times I can contemplate Jesus’s “extremism” with a certain degree of equanimity—even to the point of seeing myself accepting a painful death (though not one of extended torture).
But it’s really hard to accept an ethic that would not permit some kind of force or even violence if it was the only way to protect children from cruel aggression. That’s just not acceptable to me.
Non-violent resistance could do some good but not nearly enough in my judgment.
The only thing I can think of is that if sacrificing my own life is acceptable to me, why shouldn’t children be able to accept it too.
It does take two to have a fight. If enough people chose not to fight back maybe the aggressors would see little point in their aggression. I’m just afraid that if no one fought back, only the aggressors would remain.
But I suppose why worry about it if, after death, the non-violent will be in some kind of heaven eternally?
It certainly can’t be used for a nation’s foreign policy. And edoesn’t work to well individually is survival itself is an issue.
If Jesus taught non-violence toward all wouldn’t he have been a pacifist with regard to foreign policy?
I don’t think we can even know whether Jesus thought in terms of national policies, the way we do. His interest, and possibly the only real thing he thought about, was how individuals needed to live in order to enter the comining kingdom..
Jesus the warrior lamb in Revelation is no pacifist.
It really amazes me how far away from Christ the far right “Christians” have become. I’d love to read your thoughts on how we came from “love you enemies” to “if Jesus had a gun, he’d be alive”… 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks for all the beautiful works (definitely plural!) you do! You remind me of a cartoon character from my childhood: Multi-Man… the Hanna Barbera one, not the DC Comics supervillain!
You recently answered a question for me about what the greek word for “Christ” might have meant to the very early Greek/gentile converts. I have a follow up question about the cultural meaning of sin. Knowing that “pagan religion” is ritual based not dogma based, yet “sin” is a big issue in Paul’s letters, do you think he and the pagan converts were speaking anything like same language when it came to sin? Does Paul always use the same greek words for “sin”, and is his usage more jewish than pagan? I know pagans had some kind of views of something like sin, like this passage in Ovid Ex-Ponto Book 1:
“I’ve seen one who confessed to outraging the divinity
of linen-robed Isis kneeling before Isis’s altar.
Another, robbed of sight for a similar reason,
shouted, through the streets, that he’d deserved it.
The gods delight in instances of such testimony,
since they, thereby, give witness of their powers.”
My question is: what is your view on how pagan converts would have understood Paul’s views on sin or the greek words he used in describing it?
It’s a great question. Certainly pagans had a clear sense of what itmeant to wrong the gods; the ritual was often engaged in precisely to avert divine anger at humans for what they did or, more often, what they failed to do. Yes Paul is definitly usely Jewish ways of understanding it; the Greek word he tends to your AMARTIS/AMARTANO often referred to someont shooting an arrow at a target and missing it. Trying to be on the good side of the divinity? Sorry, you weren’t even close…. You lose.
I am curious to know whether there were any early Christian groups that actually focused their doctrines on what they thought/believed to be the moral teachings of Jesus as he taught in the early gospels? It seems that from early on as Christianity organized itself, the focus quickly came upon the importance of followers holding supernatural beliefs as being paramount and being a good moral person was a kind of a secondary after thought, not quite as important as the supernatural beliefs. I ask this only because I have always seen a bit of a disparity between the presumed teachings of Jesus and the doctrines of orthodox Christianity.
We know of early Christian gruops that emphasized Jesus teachings rather than his death and resurrection. But in those cases almost always the teachings aree secret revelations about the truth of reality, rather than ehtical injunctions. So it’s an interesting question whether ANY groups of Christians soon after Jesus’ death simply followed his moral instruction without believing in something else about him.
Bart D.E.
In his ethical teachings, Jesus is quite clear: those who loved others would enter the kingdom. That meant being as concerned for others’ well-being as for your own.
Steefen
There were 400 million people on Earth in 1300 C.E., maybe.
There were 200 million people on Earth in 25 C.E., likely less.
Jesus, Hebrew 13: 8, the same yesterday, today, and forever, at Mt 6:26 did not mention animal extinction or what so much plastic in the environment (since 5 bn people on Earth, if plastics coincide with that pop. figure) that micro plastics are inside animals, birds, fish, whales, and humans.
Being “in need” is related to human population size.
Bart D.E.
Jesus’ ethics could never govern large collectives. That was of no concern to Jesus.
Steefen
Jesus had no political diplomacy for introducing his Jewish Apocalyptic Kingdom to Temple Authorities, Jewish governor/kings or empire-sponsor governors, senators, or emperors.
Mt 15: 24 is purpose: to the house of Israel (yesterday, today, and forever).
Micro ethics, no concern for macro issues. “We as a people will get to the promise land” new Moses, Sacrifice for the World (Decius Mundus), World Savior?
Bart, how can 1 Jn 4:14 (Savior of the World) then be correct?
Comment to Bart D.E.
Josephus writes about Decius Mundus (Sacrifice for the World) in Antiquities (passage following the TF), 93 CE.
1 Jn (with a savior of the world verse, 4:14) was written probably between 95 and 110 CE.
The Gospel of John (for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son — also a sacrifice for the world verse, 3:16) was probably written between 90 and 100 CE.
Question: Is there another verse in the gospels or in the New Testament that tells us with some specificity that Jesus is a world savior/sacrifice?
Thank you,
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Decius was known for sacrifice. There were two sacrifices: the father, Decius Mus and the son, Decius Mus.
For the former, see
Loeb Classical Library. Livy, translated by B. O. Foster, Volume IV, History of Rome, Books 8-10,
Book 8, Section VI and Sections VIII, Line 19 – Section X, ps 21 and 35-43.
45 years later, 295 B.C.E., Decius Mus the son sacrificed himself.
Loeb Classical Library. Livy, translated by B. O. Foster, Volume IV, History of Rome, Books 8-10,
Book X, Sections 27-29, ps 463-475.
Both Roman father and son died as atonement for a victory. In the writings of Paul, Jesus also died as atonement for a victory.
But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15: 57
… we are more than conquerors…
Romans 8: 37
Historical Accuracy by Steve Campbell, pages 102-105
I”d say it’s a common thought throughout the NT, but usually without using the word “world” (e.g., Acts 4:12; most of the book of Revelation; etc.)
I’m afraid that’s a theological question! Better ask a tehologian….
Question on the Canon: in your opinion, what or who gave Athenasius the ‘authority ‘ to say “these will be the 66”?
He was writing his annual festal letter (the 39th!) to Christian communities under his jurisdiction, giving them pastoral advice — in this case, about which books should be seen as authoritative scriptures to be read in their worship services. He wasn’t making a universal proclamation of some sort. And so he was simply exercising his authority as the bishop of his large set of communities.
I think the thesis mentioned in paragraph two needs specificity. The mentioned changes in Western civilization cannot be credited to Pauline Christianity. Rather they could be credited to what I’d call `sermon on the mount’ Christianity. The original `Christianity’ that Jesus taught was not Pauline in character. It was so different from what Paul taught that I think it is deceptive to use the word `Christianity’ in the singular. Distinctions need to be made between the teachings of the Jerusalem Church, Paul, the Ebionites, the 1st Nazarenes, how faithful the Jerusalem church was to the original teachings of Jesus, and popular later modifications of Paul’s ideas. All of the later branches of Pauline Christianity probably have some overlap with their non-Pauline counterparts, but I suspect the latter was much more in step with the love commitments mentioned. As far as I can tell, the burning and banning of books, the killing of witches, the inquisition, the crusades, conflicts and wars between Catholics and Protestants, etc., can be blamed on Pauline or modified Pauline forms of Christianity. To my knowledge, there has never been wars over the sermon on the mount.
This is a critically important blog as it get to the central theme of Jesus’s teachings. A fundamental paradigm shift in thinking for western culture cannot be overstated. Jesus wanted to change peoples behavior. To do that you have to change their way of thinking. It leads to the question, “What Would Jesus Think Of Organized Religion Today?” Does the church practice what it preaches? How many people could be feed if the Catholic church sold a Michelangelo sculpture? What would Jesus think of how the Catholic church covers up the crimes and abuses of their priests on children? Would Jesus love Hitler? How did the church help their “neighbors” in the concentration camps during WWII? If Jesus never did a miracle and it not God he is still the most important man in western civilization and his message is more important than the man. Jesus willing sacrifices himself as the ultimate act of selfishness.
Did any other apocalyptic preachers of the time emphasize the “love your neighbor” idea or was that unique to Jesus?
I suppose they all agreed with the teaching, since it’s an important passage in the Hebrew Bible (Lev. 19:18). The big issue genreally was what “neighbor” means. Some Jewish teachers definitely taught that it was important to love those *outside* the Jewish tradition.
Which Jewish teachers?
I think it’s assumed, for example, in the famous story of the Rabbi Akiba: when a *gentile* came to him to ask him to summarize the entire law of Moses while standing on one leg, he did and said: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this—go and study it!” (He’s telling this to a *gentile*)
Bart: great post. I especially love the idea that Jesus was not concerned with the practicalities of his radical love agenda. I run a non profit for people coming out of prison who, far more often than not, need to be on the receiving end of this unconditional love. And when even a few of these basic principles are applied through our volunteers, we see tremendous response and the sprouting of a new life where there was mostly distrust of others.
Ah, may your tribe increase!!
Today, in a strong, wealthy State of Israel, the below poverty percentage is about 25%, which is of course unacceptable.1 of 3 children lives below the poverty level.
Diaspora Jews give very generously to worldwide causes, but Israeli Jews, including billionaires, give very little to the closest “neighbours” they were commanded to love as themselves. They do give to hospitals as they have an interest in hospitals being the best in case they need to be in one. They also contribute to such endeavours as will enhance them socially, in short, to be seen.
Taxes are very high in Israel. There is huge income inequality, in a country founded by socialists.
What does it tell us?First, it is unfitting. Secondly, doesn’t it sound familiar? Weren’t the priests in Jesus’ time, who received the tithes, corrupt? Didn’t the prophets complain? The Jewish people became very generous in the Diaspora, but once they returned to their homeland, it is as if history repeats itself.
The Jews deserve the recognition for being mindful of their neighbour, the stranger, the slave, in comparison to the indifference and inhumanity of the Greco-Roman world.
But they have a long way to go.
It is clear that most Israeli Jews do not see Palestineans as people to love as they love themselves.
I am publishing both these comments, but please, let’s not get into political issues on teh blog.
Bart, new guy here. Love you stuff. But I have a nagging question: are any of the New Testament writings anywhere even close to their original form? For example, I once to took a class from a NT professor who believed the book of Mark was written by a community of believers– not necessarily an individual–so it was comprised of lots of hearsay, opinions debated rather than actual eye witnessed facts. And that when the book was disseminated to others (who had no copying devices), those books were obviously ripe for new interpretations, changes, mistakes, and other personal alterations before being sent on to another who may have done the same…and so on addnfinitem…until one of these floating copies became the official canonized version. And since we have no real idea of who these hundreds of Interloping writers/editors were, how could the possibility of so many “unauthorized” writers ever scape the notice of those who canonized these books? Or am I missing something?
YOur professor probably didn’t think that Mark itself was actually written-by-committee, but that it was based on traditions that had long been in circulation for a long time; also we don’t have his original version, just later copies, all of which have been changed (usually in ways that don’t matter for much of anything). All that is right. One of the principal tasks of biblical scholarship is figuring out what the authors wrote, and, once that’s relatively well known (which I think it probably is), figuring out what traditions are what (in the Gospels: which words and deds go back to Jesus himself, which are products of later story tellers. A good deal of my scholarship/books/blog is devoted to these questions….
When Jesus’ disciples react with astonishment to his ‘camel through the eye of a needle’ line, in each of the synoptics he adds some version of “with man this is impossible, but…all things are possible with God.”
Do you feel this second line was an authentic saying of Jesus, or was it added later to tone down the apocalypticism and radicalism: partly out of embarrassment that the Kingdom of God still hadn’t come, and partly so that wealthy converts didn’t feel uncomfortable?
The second line just sounds forced and awkward, it seems to nullify the powerful line Jesus said right before: “the rich can’t be saved, but through God they can be despite retaining their riches.”
I’ve sometimes wondered; but my sense is that if he simply said “it’s impossible” then the saying wouldn’t make sense: for one thinng, without the ending why would he say “for people it is impossible”? Who *else* would need to give away riches to enter the kingdom, if not people/a person. So the bigger question is what it might actually *mean*. Here I think people get it wrong. He is NOT saying (in my view) that God is able to allow a rich person to enter into the kingdom if he chooses; he is saying that God can provide someone with the will to gie away all his/her wealth to *enable* them to enter the kingdom. You still have to give it away.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
When Jesus quotes Dt. 6:4-5 He uses the Greek “agape” (“‘charity’ love”); however the Hebrew verb is closer to “commitment” or “covenant.” This is contrasted in Lv. 19:18, where the Greek is, again, “agape” but it lines up better with the Hebrew version meaning more generally “to love” (I’m relying upon the NET translation footnotes here as the distinction, since I don’t know Greek nor Hebrew. Very sorry if this isn’t much of an issue!).
Do you think those words were used to deliberately connect the two sentences, or just a more banal translating issue?
Thank you for your time,
– Rob
The Gospel writers are having Jesus quote the Septuagint version (Greek translation of the HEbrew), and the verbal form of agape is used in both places; it’s just how the Septuagint translators rendered the verses.
in the first 500 yrs of xtianity, would the words “love your enemy” allow an enemy to willingly break the commandment
“you shall have no other gods before ME” ?
in the middle of central london, xtians were killing witches and apostates. so i am wondering what changed?
why is “loving enemy” today all inclusive?
what does it even mean “love your enemy” ?
1.an enemy who is causing chaos and disruption in the public?
2.an enemy is who related to you?
3. an enemy who is gods enemy by breaking gods commandments?
i notice that xtianity in its early days would definately not allow 1 and 3, but nowadays, its about allowing all three.
i don’t get it.
My next book will be about this concept of love in early Christianity. In my interview with a Ukranian theologian a couple of months ago on my podcast, I asked him what it meant for him to “love” Russians. And he had a terrific reply. It doesn’t mean he likes them at all. But he does hope they turn their lives around and become better people, for the sake of others of course, but also for the sake of themselves.