In its negative form the saying is found in both Jewish and pagan sources before the Christian era. Tobias is admonished by his father Tobit to love his brethren, ' and what is displeasing to thyself, that do not unto any other ^ (To 41=). H'illel'i
reply to a Gentile inquirer who asked to be taught the whole Law while standing on one foot, was, ' What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow-man ; this is the whole law, the rest is mere commentary' (Bab. Shab. 31a). A saying of Con- fucius is, 'Do not to others what you would not wish done to yourself (Legge, Chinese Classics, i. 191 f.). Gibbon (Decline and Fall, liv n.) quotes from a moral treatise of Isocrates, & iraoxovTes v<t>' iripuv dpryl^eade, raOra Tois fiWois firi woie'ire. The passage occurs in an address (written by Isocrates, a professional writer) of Nicocles, king of Cyprian Salamis (c. .374 B.C.), to his subjects, dealing with their duties as such (Isocrates, Nicocles, 61i).
The unique value of tlie Golden Rule of Jesus does not depend upon its never having been uttered by any earlier teacher in its positive form, but upon its connexion with His revelation of man's chief good. His perfect example of devotion to that good, and His power to inspire and sustain those who, at His bidding, become followers of that which is good. It remains true, however, that there is little evidence of tlie existence of any pre- Christian parallel to the positive rule. Diogenes Laertius (v. 21) tells us that Aristotle was asked how we should act towards our friends, and replied : ' as we would they should act to us.' The saying is quoted with no context, but a comparison with Nieom. Ethics, ix. 8 fin., is in favour of its genuineness. Prof. Legge, commenting on the assertion that Confucius gave the rule only in a negative form, says : ' but he understood it also in
654
GOLDEN RULE
GOLDEN RULE
its positive and most comprehensive force, and deplored, on one occasion at least, that he had not himself always attained to taking the initiative in doing to others as he would have them do to him ' {Eiicjjc. Brit.^ vi. 264'>).
In the Apostolic and post - Apostolic ages the negative form of the rule is more frequent, both in Christian and non-Christian writers. The oldest Christian authority is probably Didache, 1'-. It is also inserted in the Western text of Ac 15-°- ^, but tlie source of the variant is uncertain. Zahn refers the addition to the Didache ; but, as Rendel Harris says, ' the negative precept turns up everywhere in the early Church, having been absorbed in the first instance from Jewish ethics.' (Cf. Knowling's succinct note on Ac 15* in Expos. Gr. Test.). Other examples are Const. Apost. vii. 1 ; Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 23, 139 ; Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 16. In non-Christian authors the negative form of the rule is found in Philo (Eusebius, Pr(ep. viii. 7. 6). One of the best of the Roman emperors, Alexander Severus, had it inscribed in his palace and on public buildings (Lamprid. c. 51). Westermarck {Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, i. 693) directs attention to an interesting passage in Epictetus {Fraqm. 42) : the keeping of slaves is condemned in these words, ' What you avoid suffer- ing yourself, seek not to impose on others.' The rule in its positive form is loosely quoted in Clem. Rom. ad Cor. c. xiii., 'As ye clo, so shall it be done unto you ... as ye are kind, so shall kind- ness be shown unto you.' Harless {Christian Ethics, p. 110) ascribes to Seneca the saying, 'ab altero expectes alteri quod feceris,' — a suggestive and rare contrast to the Stoic maxim, ' Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.'
A fair inference from these facts is that tlie positive form of the Golden Rule has been gener- ally regarded as marking a distinct advance ujion the negative form, its ideal of social duty being higher and therefore more difficult to realize. But Professor Hirsch takes the opposite view ; in the Jewish Encyclopedia (vi. 22'') he says: '"What you would have others do unto you," makes self and possible advantages to self the central motive ; ' ' what is hateful to you do not unto another " makes the effect upon others the regulating principle.' But how can self-interest be tlie motive for doing good to tliankful and unthankful alike! The positive precept puts ' doing ' first, and bids us take thought in doing good ; we are to give what would please us, if we were in the place of those whom we are trying to benefit, though it may be quite certain that we shall receive nothing in return. The command of Christ accords with His teaching that they are ' blessed ' who do not invite to their feasts tliose who mil probably return the invita- tion, but tliose who cannot make such recompense (Lk W-"-). It is still more difficult to understand how 'doing nothing' to another ensures that our conduct will be regulated by altruistic principles. To do no harm is consistent \vith extreme selfish- ness. ' Tlie negative confines us to the region of jitstice ; the positive takes us into the region of generosity or grace, and so embraces both law and prophets' (Bruce, Expos. Gr. Test, in loc).