Answer: Not Jesus.
Who first invented the Golden Rule? Uncover its origins and dispel misconceptions. Explore the shared principles of major world religions. This post is dedicated to the many people who have claimed to me, without any evidence or research, that the Golden Rule was invented by Jesus, as indicated by the “Do unto others” passage of the New Testament.
As though this principle hasn’t been extolled by all the world’s major religions! As though this rule wasn’t used by many religions hundreds of years before the purported birth of Jesus. So for you guys who keep getting this wrong, PLEASE listen up:
Who First Invented the Universal Golden Rule
The golden rule has been adopted by every major world religion.
For more information, see here and here and here and here and here .
Note: You can order a versions-of-the-golden-rule poster here.
A site called Palatine Hill lists some of the oldest formulations of the Golden Rule in reverse chronological order:
- Ancient Egypt.- circa 2000 BCE “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.” – The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110,
- Hebrew Bible – circa 700 BCE “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD.”
- Zoroastrianism.- circa 600 BCE “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.” – Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,
- Buddhism.- circa 500 BCE “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” – Udana-Varga 5:18,
- Confucianism.- circa 500 BCE “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” Analects of Confucius 15:24,
- Socrates.- circa 400 BCE “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.”
The list goes on and on. Although many philosophers would object, I would add Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative to the mix. I would also add a version I learned from a neighbor when I was a kid “If you smack me, I’ll smack you back.” Or maybe that’s the Inverse Golden Rule or Obverse Golden Rule.
What’s truly interesting is that all decent people (not just believers in God) adopt a rule like the Golden Rule. Thus, there really doesn’t seem to be a religious basis for the rule. At bottom, it is a call for empathy. The more I consider morality, the more I think that it is empathy that is the basis for all workable moral systems. No matter what else a supposed moral system is about, if it’s not founded on widespread empathy (not just empathy toward the small circle of one’s own friends and family), it’s not really about morality.
Anyway, I’m trying to follow the golden rule by posting this information. I appreciated others posting this similar information for my own benefit, so now I’m posting it. Adios.
Actually I would agree with you about Kant. His Univeral Imperative is pretty much the same notion.
Thanks for posting this, the timing is bizzare though as I just posted something about ethics mentioning similar things in my blog yesterday.
Aye aye, the categorical imperative is the same thing! It's simply deductive logic…or a more fancy modern version! 😉
Even though Jesus didn't "invent" the golden rule, he still did state a version of it. Many world religions use it still today and over all it is a good moral in my opinion. But why do we need morals without someone to account to? in Christianity, we have good morals because we love God but in an atheistic view, they are empty morals. Just throwin that out there.
Actually, secular people do good for the sake of doing good. While Christians do good to make their sky daddy happy and avoid the fire of “hell” even though it’s made up. So in essence christian morality is no more to the point than a slave being called a good worker.
What you are “throwin” is crap. You don’t get points for “good behavior” if you only do it under threat of sanction( at best), or eternal damnation (at worst). Atheists “do unto others” because we are all human beings who possess EMPATHY—- no “god” req’d , thx.
HJ said
Nice straw man!
If you read the post for comprehension (along with the other linked material), you'll likely see that the common foundation for our morals are our sense of empathy – the triggering of mirror neurons that inflict pain on ourselves when we sense pain in the other, or joy on ourselves when we sense joy.
The empathic foundation for morals is also grounded anthropologically in our tribalism. Family/tribe is familiar – so one has a rich 'model' of those related people which enables a richer, deeper empathy. The other, non-tribe, have at most a passing resemblance – so one does not invest much in an internal model, and needs to 'work' to have empathy.
This is why most 'simple' morals are based upon tribal values, and why we find those easiest to adopt.
More complex morals are founded upon an extension of our commonality (extending the tribe), so that we can engage similar empathic responses for the other.
We see some people, and their moral codes, take this further (buddhists, for instance).
Many, retain a strict divide (the Nazi 'aryan' mythos is founded up[on a strong us/them divide between the aryan and the other – engaging strong empathy response for aryans, and weak empathy response for non-aryans).
So, HJ – when you claim that 'atheistic' morals are empty, you are merely spouting garbage. Morals are a formalization of our empathy. Superior morals, extend and embrace everyone into our 'tribe' – not just those who are 'saved' and not just those who 'look like us'.
In my opinion, 'atheistic' morals are the only real morals that exist – everything else is still insufferably tribal (especially any that require obeisance to an authoritarian god).
Just throwin' that out there.
Tony: Nice response. I've been impressed with the work of Frans de Waal in this area of human empathy as an extension of empathy, as found in many other primates. By the way, most other primates are atheists. For more on De Waal, see here http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/12/06/the-r… and here http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/18/the-n…
HJ-
So if you didn't love God, you would run wild– killing, murdering, raping whomever you chose? That's the implication in what you are saying, and it's terrifying.
For me, as an atheist, it's much easier to believe that most people are basically good, and that the world becomes a better place for all if we treat each other the way we would like to be treated.
This is a cartoon from a site called http://www.atheistcartoons.com/
<img src="http://www.atheistcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/thegoldenrule.jpg">
More on the extraordinarily long history of the Golden Rule. http://biblefunmentionables.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/boo-unto-others/
Jesus had ideas similar to Gandhi and MLK, they echoed Buddhist and Islamic wisdom. ‘Turn the other cheek’ is Jesus’ interpretation of the golden rule. Ron Paul, with whom I disagree on everything, presents this in the context of of a presidential contest. A first, and I admire him for it.
Paul: take a look at these links to Glenn Greenwald’s writings regarding Ron Paul. http://dangerousintersection.org/2012/01/16/conservative-fantasy-role-playing/comment-page-1/#comment-112560
The Bible couldn’t have possibly echoed Islam because Islam was invented after the Bible stories were invented.
Islam does not have the golden rule so you are wrong. Islam teaches to kill, enslave or force conversion on all non believers.
Whether Jesus originated it or not he lived it more than any other.
Responding to Nelly — Wikipedia says the Golden Rule is both implicit in the Quran and explicit in other teachings of Mohammad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
The Wiki also says the Rule can be found in (among other places) Middle Kingdom Egypt, circa 2000 b.c.e., which, as Erich points out above, is long before Jesus came along.
BTW, Christianity has plenty of stories of non-believers being killed, enslaved or forced to convert. Ever heard of the Inquisition? What about the extermination, exile and forced conversion of virtually the entire native population of North, Central and South America? What about Africa? Australia? Even the U.S. wars in (non-Christian) places like Viet Nam and Iraq had a religious component. The history of Christianity isn’t any less bloody than that of Islam, it merely benefits from (a) being (mostly) more distant in the past and (b) receiving more favorable, ratings-driven, Western media reports.
Hi Correct me If im wrong but wasn’t the oldest version you on your list
“Hebrew Bible – circa 700 BCE “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD”
That is Jesus before he came to earth
Look at the list again.
The oldest was an Egyptian reference. Did you even read the article?
Are you going to claim that that was Jesus (before he came to Earth) as well?
Are there any statements ever made throughout recorded history, that cannot be attributed to Jesus in this way?
In defense of HJ
The problem with atheists is not that we assume they will run wild into each other until they are all killed off because they have no God into their life…
No. That’s extreme and unrealistic. A God gives an automatic just and easy way of motivation towards a continuous way of thinking (if religious you could say a righteous way if not you could just call it a reliable way). This is important factor due to the human’s nature to evolve with its environment… Means we are easily persuaded or more susceptible towards agreeing with the masses when it agrees with our intuitions… For example, the media the government user the media to control the masses with images slang trends and agendas that benefit their free market. They have easily persuaded us into buying a new extensive Makeup kit because they know we WANT to be beautiful so they USE what WE WANT to convince us that we NEED it and that it’s okay to choose this over other things…
Now do you understand how easily persuaded and selfish the mind is? This is why we NEED some type if Constant guidance bc relying on ourselves we will change our minds or way of doing things just to please us. Relying on ourselves to create a righteous way of living is like asking a child to parent themselves…
We ALL NEED A TEACHER WE ALL NEED HELP NONE OF US KNOW (for certain) ANYTHING which is why i do not even call myself religious i am SPIRITUAL being because i embrace that i have s spirit and its my responsibility to nurture it and to respect others way of enhancing or inhibiting their spiritual development do the fact you all attacked hj is why i am defending.
I believe in a Creator a higher being because i KNOW that i am not always right i know i am never fully certain just hopeful i know that i can create i know that I’ve been created due to science proving how we have machines inside of us that if one piece was missing it would not have been made and its made with a SPECIFIC PURPOSE not for a random purpose or random event or random tuning everything in science says and proves how NOTHING IS RANDOM yet their explanation for our origin is random? Very peculiar… I say this because I RESEARCHED it myself when i finally decided to use MY OWN BRAIN and READ instead of FOLLOW what everyone else has told me to believe and the evidence the pieces put together depict a different picture than the one you all are backing up.
I do not think atheists Are dangerous i think people are.
>>The problem with atheists is not that we assume they will run wild into each other until they are all killed off because they have no God into their life…
Atheists do not fear being killed-off by running into each other; atheists fear being killed-off by running into hateful, judgmental, intolerant “people of faith”.
>>A God gives an automatic just and easy way of motivation towards a continuous way of thinking (if religious you could say a righteous way if not you could just call it a reliable way).
“A” god? Which one? There are so many.
>>This is important factor due to the human’s nature to evolve with its environment…
What’s that? You just used acknowledged that humans evolve?
>>Means we are easily persuaded or more susceptible towards agreeing with the masses when it agrees with our intuitions…
Pretty much the dictionary definition of “religion”.
>>For example, the media the government user the media to control the masses with images slang trends and agendas that benefit their free market.
Governments learned control of the masses by observing religious practices.
>>Now do you understand how easily persuaded and selfish the mind is? This is why we NEED some type if Constant guidance bc relying on ourselves we will change our minds or way of doing things just to please us. Relying on ourselves to create a righteous way of living is like asking a child to parent themselves…
And yet it is acceptable to be “relying on ourselves” to create that “Constant guidance” to which you refer? Basically you are saying, “We can’t rely upon our own DECISIONS, so we’ve DECIDED to create guidelines for how to DECIDE.” And when someone points out the circular fallacy of this argument, you get around the problem by claiming (without possibility of proof or disproof) that the guidlines were created by a divine third-party
>>We ALL NEED A TEACHER
Please speak only for yourself.
>>WE ALL NEED HELP NONE OF US KNOW (for certain) ANYTHING which is why i do not even call myself religious i am SPIRITUAL being because i embrace that i have s spirit and its my responsibility to nurture it and to respect others way of enhancing or inhibiting their spiritual development
Atheism and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.
>>I believe in a Creator a higher being because i KNOW that i am not always right
The fact that you are not always right, and the existence of a creator, are two separate, unrelated things.
>>i know i am never fully certain just hopeful
So you are not certain that there is a creator, just hopeful. That is a remarkable admission; I wish that all people of faith were so insightful and candid.
>>i know that i can create i know that I’ve been created
But you just said that you are never fully certain, just hopeful.
>>everything in science says and proves how NOTHING IS RANDOM
Actually, science and math tend to say just the opposite.
>>I say this because I RESEARCHED it myself
But don’t think that you understood it.
>>when i finally decided to use MY OWN BRAIN and READ instead of FOLLOW what everyone else has told me to believe and the evidence the pieces put together depict a different picture than the one you all are backing up.
Who is “you all”, and what exactly are they “backing up”?
>>I do not think atheists Are dangerous i think people are.
Well, atheists are people, too. They have all of the same strengths and weaknesses as anyone else. They just don’t attribute them to or blame them on divine beings.
Alan wrote, ““Hebrew Bible – circa 700 BCE “…I am the LORD.”
That is Jesus before he came to earth.”
Alan should read the Bible. Nowhere does the Old Testament mention Jesus, and nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus refer to himself as the Lord. Both assertions were fabricated by followers of Jesus, to satisfy their own desires.
No where Does Jesus refer to himself as lord are you serious?
Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[e]
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions
Matthew 22:41 to the end of chapter 22
Men and women want to be treated in very different ways when it comes to sex. Maybe “the golden rule” is the root of why we have such a problem with the way men treat women in our society.
I think there’s been a misunderstanding in all this.
The theory is that the entire universe was created through Jesus (love)/the Lord, and this philisophical musing can be found in many historical text, and yet is most complete in the old Hebrew texts.
The Hebrew texts never contradict the words of Jesus, but reinforce what he said or vice versa.
The idea the Jesus replaces a religious philosophy is incorrect because he’s meant to be the fulfillment of all history up until his death, at which point humanity is meant to take over by following his example.
To state the someone observed the ‘law’ first, doesn’t make them the owner of the timeless reality they’ve observed.
I think the examples outside of the Bible that you’ve given are the silver rule, though.
Actually Jesus statement in Matt 7:12 is very different from all of those above, Read it again He is saying, Imagine the very best way you would like to be treated by others and do that to them.
And no motive for it’s return from others is stated or implied. It is a significant very thoughtful departure from all of them.
Good way of explaining, and fastidious post to take facts about my presentation subject, which
i am going to convey in school.
The Golden Rule is so intuitively obvious it must have been indivdually realized/discovered in all times/cultures, by even most individuals that hadn’t yet heard it in places it was not talked about.
So, I’d expect the Golden Rule has been discovered *billions* of times. Not just thousands or millions, but I think probably at least half of people are entirely capable of coming up with it if they hadn’t heard of it yet.
Can you give better examples than the ones you gave of the golden rule? I’m not saying Jesus necessarily invented it because reciprocity is a basic human response. However, each example you gave was actually the inverse of the golden rule as Jesus taught it. It is easy not to do something bad to someone. You can actually do nothing and accomplish that. And it is also easy to do good to someone so you get something in return (reciprocity). Jesus taught that we are to do good to people whether we get something good back or not. That is the active, not passive, form of the rule. Do you have other examples like that.