into details about theSitz im Lebenof these laws and the evoked historical
tradition, we have to note that using empathy research to analyze biblical
literature involves complexities that are usually not present or not considered
in the relevant psychological scholarship. Depending on one’s position on the
genesis and use of the Hebrew Bible passages in question, it is possible that
neither the author nor thefirst readers met the orphans and immigrants
referred to, let alone were slaves in Egypt. For example, it is not straightfor-
ward to speak of affective sharing with a group of people (rather than an
individual) mentioned in a text (rather than being physically present). It is
perhaps safer to suggest that the author of the textenvisionsempathy as an
important aspect of dealing with these groups of people in society. On the
analogy of our considerations about mentalizing above, it is possible to extend
empathy to dealing with textual traditions andfictional characters.
The Golden Rule (in various forms) was a widely known moral guideline in
antiquity (Kirk, 2003):“In everything do to others as you would have them do
to you”(Matt. 7:12, NRSV). The Gospel of Luke quotes the Golden Rule in the
context of loving one’s enemy (Luke 6:27–36), whereas the Western text of the
Book of Acts uses the negative form:“Whatever you do not want to be done to
you, do not do it to others”(Acts 15:29 D; cf. Tobit 4:15). It is also interesting
to compare the Golden Rule of the synoptic gospels with the version found in
the Book of Sirach:“Judge your neighbor’s feelings by your own, and in every
matter be thoughtful”(Sirach 31:15, NRSV). At the core of these rules is the
principle of using self-knowledge as a basis for understanding others. But
where is empathy in the Golden Rule? I will argue that empathy can be implied
at two points, as a motivation eliciting action and as a touchstone for judging
about the“goodness”of the action. Let us consider three different hypothetical
scenarios against which the Golden Rule can be interpreted.
(1) The positive form of the Golden Rule can be taken as an imperative to
perform unprompted good deeds. One chooses spontaneously whatever one
would like to be done to oneself and performs this action directed at a randomly
selected recipient. (2) The rule (in both its positive and negative forms) can be
used to decide how to respond to someone else’s action. The Lukan context
especially considers how to respond to evil deeds. Being the recipient of some
action prompts a range of possible responses, of which the Golden Rule requires
the recipient to select the one they would like to be directed at them. (3) In the
third scenario, one makes an assessment of people’s situation and considers
what action they would like to be recipients of in that situation.
Only the last scenario implies empathy as the origin of moral action. With
respect to the second scenario, we can note that arguably humans cannot help
but pick up emotional clues from others’actions. This spontaneous resonance,
in turn, will influence our own actions. Let us consider the use of empathy as a
touchstone. The Golden Rule requires that in all three scenarios we run a
simulation of the planned response or action as if we were its recipients. We
170 Cognitive Science and the New Testament