>>>I recently saw a discussion of this subject by representatives of several faiths.
>>>The consensus was that the one value that they all agreed on was the Golden Rule- treat other people the way you want to be treated - or - don't treat someone else in a way that you would not want to be treated.
>>
>>I remember learning at some point in Hebrew School that the Jewish version is the negative one you expressed second. There's a story they teach about two of our sages, Hillel and Shammai, who were supposedly contemporaneous and disagreed with each other about almost everything. The story is that a non-Jew came to Shammai and said he'd convert to Judaism if Shammai could tell him the whole of the Torah while the man was standing on one foot; Shammai sent him away. Then, he went to Hillel and ask the same thing. Supposedly, Hilled said "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."
>>
>>Seems to me we were also taught that there was a big different between the positive and negative formations of the idea. The positive is reward-seeking, while the negative is not.
>>
>>I imagine they teach it a little differently in church Sunday schools and CCD. :-)
>
>Actually, it was hardly mentioned in Catholic education as I was taught in 8 years of parochial elementary school.
>The historical juxtaposition of the two forms is interesting. Confucius and Hillel used the negative form while Aristotle and Jesus used the positive.
>Jesus referred to the old testament section that you mentioned but used the positive syntax, or at least that what the translations show.
>Christian scholars interpret Jesus' syntax as a call to action- to get out and do good things for people - but I really suspect that it's simply a translation error or even a misquote by Jesus.

We have other sayings that are a spur to action. Among those collected in a book called "Ethics of the Fathers" (Pirke Avot, in Hebrew):

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, then when?

and:

You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it

I had a semester (or maybe it was a year) studying that book in my after-school Hebrew High School.

Tamar



>
>There's a growing group of people who are trying to revive Hillel's idea of the rule's importance.
>Karen Armstrong, one of my favorite religious scholars, is one of the leaders.
>She uses Hillel's syntax.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Tamar