we learn to think about ourselves as members of social groups and think about
others that way, as well. (3) Third, ourstatus systemtells us whether we are
better or worse at things than our peers. There are typical scenarios in which
we use these different systems. For example, we will mainly rely on the
relationship system in the family or when speaking to friends. At school or
at work the status system becomes important. Understanding people as
members of social groups is especially dominant when we think about
strangers. Many times, these systems send different signals about the same
situation, resulting in mixed intuitions and emotions, as illustrated above.
Many texts of the New Testament discuss how people should behave toward
others. Some sayings of Jesus set rules that improve relationships, such as the
rules of not judging others (Matt. 7:1–5), forgiving seven or seventy-seven
times (Matt. 18:21; Luke 17:4), or the rule of loving one’s“neighbor”as oneself
(Mark 12:28–31). At other times, however, relationships are downplayed or
weakened. (1) On the one hand, there is much emphasis on extending altruism
to strangers, such as suggested by the example of the Good Samaritan (Luke
10:25–37), or the requirement of loving one’s enemies (Matt. 5:44). In a sense,
of course, all societies larger than a village require us to extend many of the
behavioral norms evolved for living in small groups to dealing with members
of large, anonymous groups. But following such norms in interacting with
enemies (as Jesus suggested) goes against our evolved psychological motiv-
ations. We can note that“Samaritans”and“Judeans”are examples of two
symbolically marked groups, whose respective identities relied on hostile
emotions toward members of the other group to great extent. (2) On the
other hand, direct attacks on traditional relationships also occur in the New
Testament. For example, Jesus’rejection of his family members (Mark 3:31–
35), his forbidding a disciple to bury his father (Matt. 8:21), his commands to
his followers to renounce family bonds (Matt. 10:37, 12:50; Mark 10:29–30), or
his vision of faith in him splitting up families (Mark 14:12) are especially
surprising in the context of the household-based and kinship-oriented social
system of thefirst century Mediterranean. Paul’s opinion on marriage is
ambiguous to say the least: although he does not forbid marriage or require
divorce from an“unbelieving”spouse, he advises to avoid mixed marriage and
values remaining unmarried (1 Cor. 7). In the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,
the apostles are often accused of violating family values and destroying
families (Czachesz, 2009d), and in light of the passages cited above, as well
as the stories reported by the Apocryphal Acts, such conflicts are likely to have
taken place in reality. The ideal of an itinerant lifestyle in the gospels also
suggests a devaluation of the relationship system. In addition to the above-
mentioned attacks against family values, Jesus says he has no home (Matt.
8:20) and instructs his disciples to wander from town to town (Matt. 10:5–15;
Luke 9:1–6, 10:1–12), carrying not even a minimum of provisions (Matt.
10:9–10; Luke 9:3, 10:4).
176 Cognitive Science and the New Testament