A New View of Humanity
From: Bullies & Saints by John Dickson - pp. 33-35
There is value in comparing this Judeo-Christian view of the human being with the “pagan” or Greco-Roman view at the time of Christianity’s birth. The comparison highlights something that is often difficult to see today. In the contemporary world there is no practical difference between the Christian estimation of humanity and the secular humanist estimation—the two ideas are historically related. It is easy for us to assume that such a high view of the person, regardless of their talents or contributions, is the default view through every age. That simply is not the case.
Consider the following letter, dated 17 June 1 BC. A Roman soldier named Hilarion is stationed in the Egyptian port city of Alexandria. He writes home to his wife Alis, promising to send her some of his pay soon, asking her to look after their child, and, poignantly, reassuring her that he has not forgotten her. Some aspects of family life have not changed. In passing, though, Hilarion tells Alis that, if she happens to be pregnant, she should discard the baby when it comes:
Hilarion to his sister Alis, many greetings, also to my lady Berous and Apollonarion. Know that I am still in Alexandria; and do not worry if they [the army] wholly set out, I am staying in Alexandria. I ask you and entreat you, take care of the child, and if I receive my pay soon, I will send it up to you. Above all, if you bear a child and it is male, let it be; if it is female, cast it out. You have told Aphrodisias, “Do not forget me.” But how can I forget you? Thus I’m asking you not to worry. The 29th year of Caesar, Pauni 23 [17 June 1 BC].
Talk of casting out a child at birth—in a throw-away line in an otherwise normal family letter—is shocking to modern readers. I have read this letter to many audiences over the years, and the feeling in the room is palpable. But in ancient times, this was neither shocking nor illegal. It was not even immoral. Disposing of newborns was regarded as a method of family planning. Throughout the Greek and Roman world, excess children were frequently discarded, especially if the parents felt they could not afford another mouth, or if the child was deformed or disabled, or as in the above case, if it was a girl.
Sometimes removing a child involved direct “infanticide,” killing and disposing of the newborn. More commonly, it involved a practice known euphemistically as expositio or “exposure.” The greatest of ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle (384–322 BC), had advised, “As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared.” The child was simply left outside, whether on a street corner, in the marketplace, or even at the rubbish dump. The child might, of course, be picked up by other parents who would raise it as their own. Sadly, it could also be taken by professional traffickers, killed by an animal, or simply fall victim to the elements.
Hilarion would be arrested on the spot today. But in his context he was not a moral “monster.” He held the widespread rational view that a child’s value depended not on some intrinsic, ineffable worth but on its capacities or usefulness to the family. The outrage we feel toward the practice of exposing infants just illustrates the very different assumptions we work with today. In the ancient Greek and Roman world there was little ethical reflection on this practice. Jews of the time spoke out against it, of course. In fact, we know of one high-profile Jewish critic of expositio, a teacher named Philo, who happened to be living in Alexandria at exactly the time Hilarion was stationed there. Christians were likewise vocal about it, preaching and writing against the practice, and even collecting abandoned infants and caring for them as their own. (Hundreds of thousands of people are alive today—descendants of rescued foundlings—as a result of this ancient Christian practice. More about all this in chapters 7 and 10.)
In public lectures on these themes I have occasionally asked audiences to imagine being the friend of Hilarion in 1 BC and trying to convince him why it is wrong to “cast out” a newborn simply because the parents do not want it. We might instinctively start talking about equality and inalienable rights. But Hilarion would probably look at us, bemused. In cool-headed fashion, assuming he had read some Greek philosophy, he might turn it back on us: On what basis can you claim that a barely self-aware newborn is equal to other humans? Isn’t that just an arbitrary doctrine? Would you say that all animals are equal? Does all art have the same worth? Are all tools equally valuable? Hilarion might press us further: For what other dimension of life would we argue that items with obviously different capacities and utility all share the same worth? Nature herself has made some people smarter, stronger, better, and, therefore, more useful. The more usefulness, the greater the value. The logic is inescapable. We should prefer the strong and beneficial, and let Nature take care of the rest.
Ancient Jews and Christians had no difficulty explaining why every man, woman, and child was inherently and equally valuable. Human beings, they said, bear the image of God. The Creator regards them as his offspring. The church did not consistently live out this conviction, as we will see, but the doctrine did lead to some remarkable historical developments, including—after three hundred years of trying to persuade Rome—a complete ban on killing infants in a law of AD 374.
Taken from:
Dickson, John. Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History (p. 33-35). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Please note: footnotes and references have been removed in my quotation of John Dickson.
See Also: The Christian Compassion Revolution (Part 1) by Greg Soderberg - I found this to be an interesting post related to God's compassion applied to a very contemporary issue. CLICK HERE for entire post.
