Loading...Here are some of the excellent questions I’ve been receiving recently, and attempts to respond to them!
QUESTION:
I understand why the problem of evil makes belief in God difficult. When you look honestly at suffering, it weighs heavily. I don’t think that should be dismissed.
But I wonder… if the existence of evil counts as evidence against God, are we accounting for the existence of beauty/goodness?
Why does self-giving love move us so deeply? Why does forgiveness feel noble? Why does injustice disturb us so profoundly?
And what about beauty… music that stirs something almost sacred in us, acts of courage that restore our faith in humanity, moments of kindness that feel bigger than mere biology?
If suffering makes us question whether a good God exists, could goodness point in the opposite direction?
I’m not saying this solves the problem of evil. It doesn’t. But I do wonder whether we weigh only the darkness and forget the light.
Maybe there’s something else to consider too: when we respond to evil by creating goodness (loving/forgiving/helping/building) are we participating in something deeper? Almost as if we’re aligning ourselves with what is most real.
This isn’t an argument meant to corner you. Just as a question worth holding alongside the others. Are we accounting for the existence of beauty?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hi Bart. Excellent questions and answers as always.
I have a question about the strange passage starting with Matthew 27:62 where the Pharisees ask Pilate to send soldiers to seal the tomb of Jesus to prevent his disciples from stealing his body. Does this seem to you (as it does to me) as a response to a rumor that Jesus body was indeed stolen from his tomb? I can see why the Romans would “dump” Jesus’ body (recall what the US military did with the body of Osama bin Laden) but I can’t see Jesus’ disciples doing that. It seems far too forward thinking. They were probably thinking more about their own survival than in starting a new religion. Just imagine if they got caught in the act?
What is the real meaning of this passage for scholars and is it consistent with the rest of Matthew’s gospel? Did Matthew even write this passage? Thank you.
It’s usually thought that Matthew is countering a rumor that was going around among Jews who did not believe in Jesus that the reason there was an empty tomb (as the Christians claimed) was because the disciples had stolen the body. Matthew is trying to show it couldn’t have happened, contrary to the rumor.
Hey Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that the presence of mass suffering is not necessarily an argument against the existence of God, but rather an argument against the existence of a loving God? If so, what would a loving God be expected to do regarding suffering? Or at what point does the amount of suffering become incompatible with the existence of a loving God? I’m curious how you would define divine love in this context and what implications that definition would have for the problem of suffering/evil.
Hope retirement is treating you well,
Amir
I’d say it’s an argument against a God who is both all-loving and all-powerful. If anyone wants to believe in some other kind of God, they would have to have reasons for *that* belief as well as do those for traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs in the all-loving and all-powrful god. I myself can’t think of compelling reasons for thinking there is some other kind of god either…
I do find one theodicy (or defense?) Compelling…
That God wants us to go through this life with both free will and suffering first, to become who we need to be in the next life -that has free will but no suffering.
Since a different world is not so, and because God is logic, we can assume a different world that can achieve [this] result is not logically possible.
*And yes, in this model God can’t do anything logically impossible, and to say that he is limited is a category error.
I find this perspective consistent with an all loving and powerful God, especially since (biblically) there are other cosmic forces at play (that we constantly choose over him), and that the virtuous and innocent will be compensated in the next life.
After all, every tear will be wiped away (trauma erased, bigger perspective?)
(I think) it also falls on the non-theist to prove that any [seemingly] gratuitous suffering doesn’t somehow serve a purpose down the line.
THanks. Do you have a *reason* for thinking this is right? And for why some people are in shriekingly horrible pain for years whereas others have fantastic lives from start to finish? Just asking.
Well, the bible talks about other gods and fallen angels and such apocalyptic ideas (reference Heiser and McClellan).
Philosophically, only good comes [from] God, so, logic comes from him too.
The bible talks about being rewarded in the next life (I think Paul at some point too?)
God wants the maximum number of us to become maximally virtuous (this seems like a reasonable assumption, since it’s entirely possible).
The challenge that the skeptic has to prove that what seems like gratuitous natural suffering [cannot] in some way serve a purpose down the line, and that God won’t use it for a greater good, seems reasonable as well. After all, we are here now. Something went right.
Clearly, from the perspective of eternity, something that we can only apprehend, this life is just a spark of a moment in time. Compared to what comes next in the resurrection it would only fade away.
These are my reasons for thinking this. I’m generally agnostic, and tend to fall into your camp. However, logically this seems to work. Although it’s not very emotionally satisfying.
Another topic (if you’re inclined and might someday think it worth the time): I and, I expect, other readers with a background in philosophy would find it interesting to hear your reflections on Nietzsche’s portrayal of the nature of the historical Jesus and his supposed non-apocalyptic message. As an undergraduate, I wrote about this thirty years ago. I’ve since realized, in large part from reading your and other historical work, how misguided N’s conception seems in view of the evidence and historical methods. But I’m curious whether you or other historians in your fields see any value or insights in N’s discussion of the historical Jesus and his message as presented (most prominently) in The Antichrist. Even though N’s portrayal of the historical Jesus errs is highly improbable at best, did he, in your view or that of other NT scholars, get anything right? Does, or did, his reading of the NT, despite the errors, offer historians any valuable insights, either at the time of its publication or since? Did it influence how they thought or their inquiries in any regard? How are N’s views generally regarded by mainstream historians of the NT and historical Jesus today?
Thanks. I’ll think about it. I was especially absorbed last summer in the Genealogy of Morals, but didn’t think about blogging on it. (A bit complicated because there’s so much to explain…) I don’t know that his views of Jesus had any significant influence on historical scholars.
1. Would you say it is safe to conclude that even before his vision of Jesus, Paul was already an apocalypticist and familiar with visionary experiences?
2. Paul says that after his vision he went to Arabia which I assume would have been historical Nabatea, correct? Why there do you think? Any clues?
Thx!
1. Yes 2. Yes. No idea why he went there. Well, some ideas, none of them verifiable: he was originally from there? he had relatives there? he was planning to go there for other reasons? Don’t know!
Hi Bart, it looks like you were typing too fast in your response above on the length of the ministry of Jesus. Passover is in the spring, not the fall.
A scribal corruption of the texxt.
Bart,
Megan Lewis, Before the Bible, must tackle
YouTube video: The Sumerian Tablet That Lists 3 Types of Human–and Says Only One Was Made Naturally.
YouTube Channel: The Enki Codex
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy [of the Bible]
Future author of Historical and Scientific Accuracy of the Bible
I was going to update my book by adding the “genesis” of human origins by adding the Sumerian account from Atrahasis.
The YouTube video mentioned above argues that there were 3 Types of humans, not one. Genesis has been understood to say Adam and Eve were one species, one type of humans.
There are many clay tablets of Ancient Sumer in many places: The Iraq Museum, The British Museum, Yale, and more. Looking at accounts before the Bible brings us to categories of writings more than just mythology.
3 types of humans include these two types: 1) created by evolution and 2) created by genetic engineering–Atrahsis says 7 male and 7 female humans were genetically engineered.
We look forward to Bart and Megan discussing human origins accounts before the Bible.
Bart, can you and Megan have that important discussion?
We probably will at some point!
Thank you.
Regarding goodness it depends on what is meant by “God”. If “God” means Yahweh then no. Yahweh’s Mosaic law is full of immoral laws, like the approval of slavery, the approval of physically beating slaves, the approval of women as property, the approval of killing anybody who works on Saturday, etc… Evil and suffering is solved in different religions. For the Hindu God “Brahman”, reincarnation accounts for evil and suffering. People endure them for bad things they did bad in their current, or previous, lives. Brahman is good because karmic balance is good.
I don’t think the disciples of Jesus gave up family and everything to follow Jesus. The gospels claim that to make propaganda for Jesus as the Davidic messiah. It’s melodramatic to say they abandoned their families and everything for such a holy quest. In reality, Jesus made Capernaum the headquarters and base of operations for his movement. Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew, and their families, lived in Capernaum during the public ministry of Jesus. So, they didn’t give up their families and everything. The other disciples’ families probably lived in nearby towns; they were with their families as often as they journeyed around with Jesus.
Since this is a question about a familiar legendary anecdote, I can probably guess what your answer will be, but let me ask anyway.
A friend of mine who is Armenian told me that, according to an Armenian tradition, the apostle Thomas first preached in Armenia, and that his disciple, Elder Ariston, wrote the ending of Mark 16:9–20. I do not know how historically reliable this tradition is, but it made me think about the famous Armenian manuscript attribution of the longer ending to “Ariston the Elder.”
I understand that most scholars do not regard Mark 16:9–20 as having been written by Mark himself. But if this ending did not come from Mark, would the possibility that it derived from an early tradition-bearer such as Ariston change how we should evaluate the passage? Would it still be regarded simply as a later addition, or could it be understood as preserving an early resurrection tradition, even if it was not part of the original Gospel of Mark?
I believe this is found in an Armenian manuscript from the late 10th century? I don’t think that would count as “evidence” — especially since we know so little about Ariston (assuming this is the figure that Papias mentions). I twould be more like an obvoiusly many-centuries-later legend that would need to be looked into. Is it possible? Well, I suppose any literate person from the early second century could be put forward as possibly the one who added the ending, but I can’t think of any reason for supposing it was Ariston in particular.
I don’t see how the problem of evil works in reverse. If evil exists, then that’s a problem for the claim that an all-powerful good God exists. But if good exists, then that would be a problem for the claim that an all-powerful evil God exists. But it’s no problem at all for the claim that no god exists. If there is both good and evil in the world, then that’s about what you’d expect if there was nobody in the heavens minding the store for us and we were on our own to make the world a better place.
I don’t really see the logic of that. Evolutionary biology easily explains why there is so much that is experienced that is good and so much that is evil. But it is very difficult indeed to think of a reason (though millions of people have tried, even to the satisfactoin of many other millions) for MASSIVE in extremis suffering to exist wiht a good and all-powreful God in charge of the world. You could explain the good, but not the evil. (I have a post on that coming out on June 13)
‘Goodness’:
You’re right: the issue is the scale and extremity of evil. That deserves to be felt, not solved.
But I noticed how the two sides are weighed. Suffering is counted: its sheer mass makes a loving, active God hard to believe. On goodness/beauty/love/self-giving, your question seems only whether we need God to enjoy them, not whether they point to something.
I see that might be fair. Evil is an embarrassing problem for belief: suffering is hard to square with a good, able God. Unbelief promised no good world, so goodness doesn’t embarrass it.
But once we ask which worldview is surprised by what, the question boomerangs back. Suffering surprises if God is good and powerful. But does this goodness surprise naturalism? Nature explains what helps us survive. Does it explain beauty without purpose, kindness that costs the giver everything, the sense that some things are truly right, not merely useful?
I’m not claiming this settles anything. Both worldviews, belief and unbelief, pay a price somewhere. I ask whether that price is faced as honestly on the bright side as on the dark. If the darkness counts as evidence, why does the light count only as something to enjoy?
Respectfully,
Yes, I’d say evolutionary biology exasily explains our human sense of beauty and wonder and goodness, as well as why there is and always has been such incredible and mind-boggling suffering in the world.
Dr. Ehrman,
In Love Thy Stranger, you write that “This sense of moral obligation to strangers in need is not written into the human DNA. Nor was it found in the ancient roots of our cultural heritage in the West.”
How would you reconcile that claim with Eumaeus’ statement in The Odyssey that “it would be wrong for me to turn a guest away… every stranger and beggar is from Zeus”?
I realize that Homeric hospitality (xenia) may differ from the broader ethic toward outsiders that you discuss in the book. Still, does this passage suggest that some moral obligation toward strangers was already present in pre-Christian Greek culture, even if in a more limited form?
I deal with that in the book. Xenia was absolutely a factor in ancient Greece. BUT: it was to be extended ONLY to those who were of your own socio-economic-cultural class. Not to strangers per se. That is borne out in the Odyssey itself. Compare how Odysseus is welcomed by the Phaeacians when they observe his figure and bearing versus how he is welcomed by the suitors when he comes as a beggar to Ithica!
I think Amir’s correct that the problems of evil and suffering don’t as much call into question God per se as they do the God who gets preached on Sunday mornings, the God who is the only God and who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, etc. To preserve that God, the idea of original sin emerged, meaning he isn’t responsible for evil and suffering, we are. A maneuver that does seem a bit glib. Rejecting it leads to various alternatives, among which are reconceptualizing the one God as deficient in either love or power or both (Amir’s point), developing a dualistic conception of God, or concluding that the idea of God just makes no sense (which you give in your answer to Amir). The church, of course, anathematizes all of them, but how far from the New Testament is that second option? In II Cor 4:4 Paul explicitly contrasts the God of whom Christ is the likeness with “the god of this world” who has blinded unbelievers. Does blindness to belief generate evil and suffering? But still: two gods? Is Paul at bottom a dualist, some sort of proto-Manichean?
Marcion claimed Paul was a dualist. But the historical Paul was certainly not. THe “god of this world” is the devil.
Dr Ehrman, my question refers to ancient Israelite religious tradition … inspired the community on Elephantine Island. Here goes … Yahweh had a consort named Asherah. They were worshipped together, until they weren’t (God’s divorce). There is also a (later) tradition (from Elephantine Island) of another divine being (goddess?) named Anat (Anath) who is also paired with Yahweh. Does this mythology/tradition imply that Yahweh had two consorts/wives; 1st Asherah & 2nd Anath? Getting a little mythological “romance novel” about it, Would Asherah & Anath had known about each other? Did Yahweh divorce Asherah then take up with Anath? Was Yahweh involved with both Asherah & Anat simultaneously? There are passages in the OT describing the destruction of all things Asherah. But Anath is only/mostly mentioned in the community on Elephantine Island (as well as in the Baal Cycle). What happened to Anath and her connection to Yahweh? How did that “relationship” end?
Obviously, I’m not asking about “historical evidence” here, just a mythological speculation on Yahweh’s consort(s). Stretch your imagination, be creative, have fun with it.
All interesting questoins! And you’re right, fruitful grounds for speculations, with little way to adjudicate the optoins….
I have been thinking about the languages used in the earliest Christian movement. The first believers were mainly Jews from Galilee and Jerusalem, and I assume that most of them, including Jesus, spoke Aramaic as their ordinary language.
Given the relatively low literacy rates of the time and the fact that Paul was a highly educated Diaspora Jew, what language would actually have been used in discussions such as the Jerusalem Council?
Would the main discussions have taken place in Aramaic, with Paul and Barnabas participating directly? Was Paul likely fluent enough in Aramaic to discuss complex theological issues—perhaps suggested by Maranatha in 1 Corinthians 16:22—or might some form of interpretation have been involved?
If interpretation was used, the Jerusalem Council may have been far more linguistically complex than the polished Greek speeches in Acts suggest. The core debate may have occurred in Aramaic and only later been translated or reconstructed by Luke in Greek.
From my own experience, interpretation can significantly affect the flow and nuance of a discussion. How likely is it that the Jerusalem Council involved multiple languages, and what implications would that have for reading Acts 15 as a historical account?
Part of the problem is that the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 is far more organized and structured than what Paul talks about having happened in Galatians 1-2. Paul seems to have talked to the leaders of the church, and twisted their arms; I’d assume that was through a translator. But the speeches of Acts 15 are being reported as actual speeches, apparently in Greek. That seems implausible on a number of grounds. But whatever one is to imagine of translations, the Acts 15 speeches are internally consistent enough to suggest that the major points would have been fairly unambiguous [keep the law or not], since the optoins presented are pretty clear.
I’m sure that the above defense that I wrote is a theodicy that you are familiar with, I think it’s called a theodicy of goodness? I would like to know what you think about it? Does it work, or cause other problems?
Thank you, sir!
Yes, I’ve heard it before. I suppose one problem I have is that “theodicy” is a matter of explaining something based on reasonable argument, and some solutionsa are not based on reasoning so much as faith (“here is what I believe” rather than “this is the reason to think so”), and this seems to me to be that kind of thing?
To me, what I stated is based in reason, and those reasons support a faith based perspective.
Are you saying that it’s unreasonable?
I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying it’s not based on an argument but an assertion. That’s absolutely fine, but it’s not the same thing. An argument would give the grounds for thinking that what it says is right, not simply saying what it thinks is right.
Ok, thank you for clarifying! I will have to think more about it.
Just a note about evolutionary biology good, evil, suffering and benefits. Whatever applies to humans must also apply to other organisms. All creatures can suffer from lack of food, hydration, from overheating, etc. Only human perspectives create the attributions, i.e. anthropomorphisms that we label as good, evil, unfair, etc. An empirical and non-anthropomorphic framework would not attribute evil to a grizzly bear attack, even though suffering could be attributed to the animal attacked, i.e. physical pain via nerve sensations registered in the brain.
Extending this ‘altruism’ can be seen in the natural world, especially when parents risk themselves protecting infants from harm. Explaining altruism is more difficult. It is usually attributed to a biological protection mechanism to perpetuate the species. Darn, there is that anthropomorphic ‘attribution’ term again.
In many ancient religions, mortals are punished for becoming too successful, beautiful, knowledgeable, or prosperous. Gods are often capricious and driven by motives that humans can scarcely understand, and sacrificial systems are less about loving communion with the divine and more about appeasing dangerous supernatural powers. Israel certainly portrays God as terrifying, holy, and capable of judgment. But the prophets repeatedly insist that God’s fundamental character is righteous, merciful, faithful, and loving, even when Israel is suffering exile, invasion, famine, or defeat. In Israel’s Scriptures, the supreme God is portrayed as the benefactor of humanity, and Israel’s suffering is interpreted not as divine jealousy but as part of a larger covenantal relationship aimed at restoration. As a historian, how do you account for a people with such a tragic national history arriving at the belief that the power behind the universe was good?
I’m not sure that religions generally punish people for their success, beauty, knowledge, or wealth; most ancient religions punished them for what they DO with those things, especially if they use these gifts in competition with the gods (e.g., in Ovid’s Metamorphosis) or to hurt others. My sense is that monotheistic religions by their nature consider teh ultimate divine being to be good, and hope to get on the good side of him. If he’s bad, it doesn’t much matter which side of him you’re on….
Regarding why goodness and beauty exist, an evolutionary biologist would say that we have evolved to be prosocial (and therefore value goodness) and artistic expression is a way of promoting ourselves in a prosocial way, and of creating common values that promote group solidarity. If you’re interested in these topics I would recommend THE GOODNESS PARADOX by Richard Wrangham and HOMO AESTETICUS by Ellen Dissanayake.