(16 votes, average: 4.69 out of 5)
Loading...Is there any way to consider the God portrayed in Job as a morally upright being who deserves complete devotion? Read the account yourself. I have summarized the “folktale” of Job (found in Job 1-2, 42) in my previous post. This is a tale that portrays God, Job, and the reason for human suffering very differently from the (different) composition of Job 3-42, a set of dialogues between Job and his friends and eventually God that I will discuss in my next posts. For now I’m interested in the reasons God crushes the righteous Job with suffering in the tale.
The overarching view of suffering from the story is clear: sometimes suffering comes to the innocent in order to see whether their pious devotion to God is genuine and disinterested. Are people faithful only when things are going well, or are they faithful no matter what the circumstances? Obviously for this author, no matter how bad things get, God still deserves worship and praise.
But serious questions can be raised about this perspective, questions raised by the text of the folktale itself. For one thing, many readers over the years have felt that God himself is not to be implicated in Job’s sufferings, since after all, it is the Satan who causes them. But a close reading of the text shows that in fact it is not that simple. It is precisely God who
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!
God himself has caused the misery, pain, agony, and loss that Job experienced. You can’t just blame the Adversary. And it is important to remember what this loss entailed: not just loss of property, which is bad enough: but a ravaging of the body and the savage murder of Job’s ten children. And to what end? For “no reason” – other than proving to the Satan that Job wouldn’t curse God even if he had every right to do so. Did he have the right to do so? Remember, he didn’t do anything to deserve this treatment. He actually was innocent – as God himself acknowledges. God did this to him in order to win a bet with Satan. This is obviously a God above, beyond, and not subject to human standards. Anyone else who destroyed all your property, physically mauled you, and murdered your children – simply on a whim or a bet– would be liable to the most severe punishment that justice could mete out. But God is evidently above justice and can do whatever he pleases, if he wants to prove a point.
What then are we to make of this view of suffering, that it sometimes comes as a test of faith? I suppose people who have a blind trust in God might see suffering as a way of displaying their devotion to him, and this could indeed be a very good thing. If nothing else it can provide inward fortitude and a sense that despite everything that happens, God is ultimately in charge of this world and all that occurs within it. But is this really a satisfying solution to the pain and misery that people are compelled to endure? Are we really to imagine a divine being who wants to torment his creatures in order to see whether or not he can force them to abandon their trust in him? What exactly are they trusting him to do? Certainly not to do what is best for them: it is hard to believe that God inflicts people with cancer, flu, or AIDS in order to make sure they praise him to the end. Praise him for what? Mutilation and torture? For his great power to inflict pain and misery on innocent people?
It is important to remember that God himself acknowledged that Job was innocent – that is, that he had done nothing to deserve his torment. And God did not simply torment him by taking away his hard-earned possessions and physical health. He killed Job’s children. And why? To prove his point; to win his bet. What kind of God is this? Many readers have taken comfort in the circumstance that once Job passed the test, God rewarded him – just as God rewarded Abraham before him, and Jesus after him, just as God rewards his followers now who suffer misery so that God can prove his case. But what about Job’s children? Why were they senselessly slaughtered? So that God could prove a point? Does this mean that God is willing – even eager – to take my children in order to see how I’ll react? Am I that important, that God is willing to destroy innocent lives just to see whether I’ll be faithful to him, when he has not been faithful to me?
Possibly the most offensive part of the book of Job is the end, when God restores all that he has lost as his reward. Including additional children. Job lost seven sons and three daughters, and as a reward for his faithfulness, God gave him an additional seven sons and three daughters. What is this author thinking? That you can replace children? That the pain of a child’s death will be removed by the birth of another? That children are expendable and replaceable like a faulty computer or DVD player? What kind of God is this? Do we think that everything would be made right if the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust were “replaced” by having six million additional Jews born in the next generation?
As satisfying as the book of Job has been to people over the ages, I have to say I find it supremely dissatisfying. If God tortures, maims, and murders people just to see how they would react – to see if they would not blame him, when in fact he is to blame – then this does not seem to me to be a God worthy of worship. Worthy of fear, yes. Of praise? No.
God is love (1 John 4:16). Paul says love does not seek its own interests (1 Corinthians 13). Something is awry with the god of Job.
St Paul didn’t walk the walk Jesus or his original 11 walked. I find him too smart, coming up with his own ideas [independent of Jesus]
Wouldn’t an omniscient deity already know the answer without having to perform the, ah, experiment?
Your comment is an implicit anachronism. It was a long time before anyone thought any god was omniscient, omnipotent, or purely good. This story is simply one explanation for why bad things happen to good people. Powers of evil sometimes get the upper hand. But that’s from other stories. For this story, the moral is that things on earth can still be controlled/influenced by God, but you may never know why, and you should accept that.
An acquaintance of mine lost her husband to a very early and painful death. While she suffered her loss at first she eventually found solace in that the husband’s death brought her closer to Jesus. Fine for her, but what about her husband?
Exactly.
Can the point of the story be deduced from the question,
What if Job at any point had done as predicted by the adversary?
I suppose then God would not have replaced his seven slaughtered children with seven more….
And God would not be God..the adversary would.
Well said.
I find your example in the death of King David’s son even more difficult for believers. It would stand to reason if parents who tragically lost their child went to their pastor for guidance, the pastor *should* warn them the child’s death may have been the result of the parents sins, lest they continue the sin and lose another child. Any good pastor would do this.
Do you have a problem with the “God of Job” or the “Authors of Job”?
I think more attention should to be directed to the authors as they are anonymous and we don’t really know how they got the non-earthy accounts of this story (God, Angles, Satan, etc.).
We have contradicting views regarding the suffering issue, and I think you interweave a lot of anthropomorphism elements in it. I would like to summarize my understanding to the suffering issue and then I will discuss the story of Job accordingly:
1# The laws of nature don’t change. Therefore, if some people believe that God created the universe then they need to realize that God won’t change the laws of the universe for them. Or in more precise statement: breaking the laws of the universe is the rare exception and not the norm.
[This can clearly be understood in Quran 33:62, 35:43, 48:23].
2# The suffering of people doesn’t normally come as a direct act from God, but it is just the consequences of the laws of nature. The true suffering depends of how the people deal and react to these laws. This can be explained by the following two examples:
—–>>
—–>>
2.1### God gave the Israelites a proper set of laws. They follow it and later they formed a strong kingdom. However, many of the religious authorities started to abuse these laws for their own benefits or glorification. This put the seeds of hypocrisy and unjust inside the community. This normally will lead to serious internal struggles that will weaken the community, which will end up by either a civil war or a foreign entity comes in and take the country.
It has been said that: the great civilization will never be conquered from without until it is destroyed from within. The suffering here came from the Israelites themselves playing with dynamics of the social system (which is part of the laws of nature).
2.2### The laws of nature produce some natural catastrophes. However, the true suffering comes from the actions and reactions of the people toward these catastrophes: if the people are really fair with empathy toward themselves then the people as a whole will be able to overcome these catastrophes. But if the people are not fair (except superficially) then this will result in a very serious suffering to many people.
—->
—->
3# I have mentioned in a previous comment (post: The Mind-Body Problem 15-12-22) that it seems heaven have decided that suffering is an accepted cost for human innovation. And it seems from looking at history that suffering was the main agent for skills development. Also, it seems that suffering was the main agent for the evolution of all other biological species.
4# The question: “If God is so loving then why he allows suffering” is not a valid logical argument because if we transfer this question into a logical statement: “If God is loving then he will not allow suffering” then this statement is weak as it cannot be proved. Therefore, our inability to properly answer the previous question doesn’t make any logical difference.
5# Taking the above notes then I can say that the story of Job (without the non-earthy accounts which the authors couldn’t know) is a brilliant story, very useful and we see it constantly in different themes. Actually, the story of Job is mentioned in a few short verses in the Quran and I will discuss it here based on the above notes:
——>>
——>>
5.1# Job believed in God.
5.2# Job went into series of sufferings.
5.3# Job didn’t lose faith with God. This kept Job holding himself. Therefore, this series didn’t caused Job to become addicted to alcohol or drugs. He didn’t leave home in despair. He didn’t commit suicide. But he managed to hold himself. This hold was the direct result of having faith.
5.4# This series of sufferings have ended.
5.5# It has been said that: the hit that doesn’t break the bones will make you stronger. Passing through this cloud of suffering in one piece made him stronger and more resilient, and he manage to recover and gain back what he lost.
#####
This story (without the non-earthy accounts in the OT) from the start to the end didn’t break the laws of nature, and we can see similar themes of this story almost every day. I think there is a movie with a similar true theme that was acted by Will Smith.
Similar stories happen also to atheists, and if we asked them how they passed through these clouds of sufferings, their answers would be that they believed in something (self, love, hope, etc), and this belief hold them from breaking.
—–>>
—->>
I don’t think that the earthy accounts about Job in the OT or the verses in the Quran give clear indications that having faith in God will definitely allow you to pass safely through the clouds of suffering.
But if there was chance to be able to pass through this cloud then it is very vital to be able to hold yourself from breaking. Believing in something noble that is larger than yourself can hold you during the time of suffering. Believing in God do exactly this thing with probably extra benefits.
But still, some people do have faith in God and go through the cloud of suffering in hope but they might not succeed. Nonetheless, failing while holding yourself is much more decent than having a nervous breakdown.
So, the earthy accounts about the story of Job are really useful and inspiring, and the moral here: if Job and others have passed through the clouds of suffering without breaking down, then I should be able to do the same thing.
You seem to see “having a nervous breakdown” as indecent! What exactly do you mean by “having a nervous breakdown”? If you mean what that usually means, you are referring to having a mental illness (be it depression, ptsd, schizophrenia, etc). Those illnesses are NOT moral failure any more than having the flu or cancer is a moral failure. They are forms of suffering in themselves.
I think the context can clearly clarify the intended meaning.
No. I didn’t mean illness because illness is not a decision. I meant these sort of unfortunate extreme irreversible decisions that some individuals might do to commit suicide or to leave home into the wilderness in despair, or to runway via alcohol or drug addictions.
If we look at the earthy accounts of Job story (and there are many true similar stories) then we can say that he was ill and he was highly likely in deep depression. But he managed to hold himself while passing through the cloud of suffering. This is (as I presume) the moral of this story.
Having said all the above, I acknowledge that there might be some extreme cases that are completely beyond any individual to handle, therefore, we might understand these individuals’ irreversible decisions. These are extreme cases that I am not discussing here. But from a general perspective, it is much better to hold yourself while passing through the cloud of suffering than to make a sudden unfortunate irreversible decision.
Thank you for the detailed response! A central point from Bart was that God, through giving permissions to Satan, directly intended for Job to suffer as a result of Job’s demonstrated obedience to God – instead of Job suffering through natural causes and effects. I understand your point that the author may have meant to clearly demonstrate, through Job’s steadfast obedience, that we can all endure incredible suffering and make it to the end of the suffering with possibly even better results, but, by having God encourage Satan to try to ‘break’ Job, one might lose trust that God ‘loves’ us as individuals instead of boasting to Satan that his best followers would survive the worst of Satan. That is certainly a type of ‘tough love’ that many people would not comfortably accept today as they might of 2000 years ago.
From the scientific historical perspective (leaving the metaphysics out), we cannot determine if Job ever existed. But if we took the earthy-accounts of the story then we can say that the earthy-accounts do happen: it is rare to see an individual suffering from unrelated and unintentional series of misfortune that came together at the same time. This is rare but it does happen. Therefore, the earthy-accounts of the story of Job is probably the first of its kind in recorded history. The moral of this earthy-accounts is also impressive: It is much better to hold yourself while passing through the cloud of suffering.
The non-earthy accounts of the story are also interesting, because we need to ask about the intentions of the authors: what happened that motivated the authors to include these non-earthy accounts! This is totally a different subject than the first one.
The next question would be: how did these non-earthy accounts affected the theology of the people who believed it.
The one thing that seems surprising is that people normally don’t stop for a minute and ask the most simple critical question: Who are the authors and how did they know what they are claiming!
You base a lot of your assumptions on the notion that “God won’t change the laws of the universe” to alleviate human suffering; but the verses you reference in the Quran don’t say this at all, unless you stretch them completely out of context. And even if scriptures did say that “God won’t change the laws of the universe” to alleviate suffering, that’s no answer to the question of WHY he wouldn’t or shouldn’t.
The state of affairs you describe – life developing out of the death and suffering of evolution, humans sometimes innovating and improving as a response to suffering, and humans sometimes growing stronger from passing through suffering (emphasis on “sometimes”) – is exactly what you would expect if God does not exist.
Why worship a god that doesn’t actually DO anything?
1$ If we took the translation of Quran 33:62 (for example) then you might find it as: Allah’s way will not change. “Way” is the English translation of the Arabic word “Sunnah”.
The following two lines have the same meaning in Arabic literatures:
# The sunnah of God in the universe.
# The sunnah of the universe.
Sunnah here means the laws and dynamics. So, there are more meanings in “Sunnah” than the English translation “Way”.
2$ The suffering issue can be explained via two perspectives:
# God doesn’t exist.
# God does exist, but God doesn’t want to change his laws for nature.
Both perspectives are valid. Therefore, the suffering issue cannot be used as an argument against the existence of God, and the existence/non-existence of God need to be discussed through other different arguments.
3$ The Question “WHY he wouldn’t or shouldn’t” should be an inquiry and not an argumentative question, because the answer “I don’t know” is sufficient and it doesn’t mean I am right or wrong, and it doesn’t mean that I am accepting a contradiction. It simply highlights an unknown area of knowledge. Therefore, my inability to answer this question doesn’t make any logical difference.
—–>
1) Look at Quran 33:60 and 33:61. However you translate “way”, it has a very specific antecedent in those previous versus. It is referring to how hypocrites and scandal-mongers will be cursed, seized, and killed. That is the “way” that Quran 33:62 is referring to.
2) You can use this logic to propose any odd reality you care to imagine.
#Fairies don’t exist
#Fairies do exist but don’t want to interact with the universe
3) The question “WHY” DOES exist as an inquiry – one that is not answered in any sufficient way by Job or any other book of scripture.
1# Yes, your interpretation is ok, though you are missing a key factor: It seems that the leaders of the hypocrites (the people who say that they are Muslims, but they are not) were planning a serious scheme. The verses 33:60 to 33:62 issued a serious and final ultimatum to these leaders: either they will end their scheming all together or they will be gathered and executed. This message was loud and clear, and the scheming ended.
However, verse 33:62 is a general statement (the sunnah of God will not change) that is above the specificity of the subject. For example: I am warning my friend from trusting an individual who is known of being dishonest. So, I am telling my friend: don’t trust him, liars will always be liars. Now, there is a specific subject here, but I ended it with a general statement (regardless whether it is right or wrong) that is above the specificity of the subject. This is the same case in verse 33:62, 35:43, 48:23.
2# I understand your logic about the fairies, and I can add the following:
The suffering issue cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of fairies, and disproving their existence require other different arguments.
Also, the supernova in the starts cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of fairies, and disproving their existence require other different arguments.
Also, the supernovas cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God and proving or disproving the existence of God require other different arguments.
Equally, the suffering issue cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God and proving or disproving the existence of God require other different arguments.
3# The formal standard way of proving or disproving things are through series of robust logical statements. But informally, some would highlight a logical contradiction using questions. These questions can be transformed into robust logical statements. Therefore, these questions could be regarded as argumentative questions.
However, many might raise questions that cannot be transformed into robust logical statements. Therefore, these questions cannot be regarded as argumentative questions, but mostly they are inquiry questions that are presented in an argumentative “”tone””.
So, the questions in the suffering issue are inquiry questions that cannot highlight logical contradictions, and if my answers weren’t satisfactory or I couldn’t answer these questions at all, that will not make me right or wrong, but it will only highlight an unknown area of knowledge.
There are tons and tons of inquiry questions from the naive ones (did Adam have a belly button?) to the more serious ones (what was before the big bang?),, and my inability of answering these questions doesn’t make any argumentative difference.
#2
Yes, I agree. There’s no way to disprove fairies. Or leprechauns, or any other sorts of magic.
#3
I’m not sure what you mean in referencing your “inability of answering”. Do you mean “you” personally, or “you” universally?
You do seem very interested in what can be logically proven or disproven. Not my interest, really. Though the words “prove” and “proof” are tossed about frequently in informal ways, the sort of absolute logical proof you’re talking about doesn’t really come into play in most of history and science, fields that depend more on the weight of evidence.
2# You are missing or abusing the logic here:
You cannot use the suffering issue to prove or disprove Einstein theorem, although this theorem can be proved using other different arguments.
3# You are unable to give professional answers to questions that are related to unknown areas of knowledge (eg: what was before the big bang), hence the “inability to answer”. However, some might answer these questions fictitiously and unprofessionally.
Logic are also used to define the best probable interpretations for historical and scientific events by comparing and analyzing available evidences. However, if you are not interested in Logic then why should we have logical discussions!
No. The notion that God will not change the laws of nature is simply not to be found in these verses. This context has nothing to do with the laws of nature:
“Quran 33:60-62
If the hypocrites, and those with sickness in their hearts, and rumour-mongers in Medina do not desist, We will certainly incite you ˹O Prophet˺ against them, and then they will not be your neighbours there any longer.
They deserve to be˺ condemned. ˹If they were to persist, they would get themselves seized and killed relentlessly wherever they are found!
That was Allah’s way with those hypocrites who have gone before. And you will find no change in Allah’s way.“
I did present the understanding that I have for the statement “And you will find no change in Allah’s way” in my previous two comments to you. I did clarify the Arabic word for “way” and the meaning for it. I emphasized that this statement is a general statement, and I did demonstrate that general statements can be included in specific subjects.
However, you do have the right here to form your own opinions and interpretations the way you feel fit.
No, Einstein’s theory of relativity is not “proven” by logic, it is supported by evidence. Proof is for beer and math. Science and history are supported by evidence.
Logic is the process that links evidences to arguments and theories.
Furthermore, Einstein derived his theorem of general relativity about 1915 by logical arguments and mathematical deductions.
The first evidence for it came about 1919, and many other evidences came after that, but all of these evidences were not decisive. Therefore, he didn’t get the Nobel prize for this theorem, but he took the Nobel prize for something else.
The first decisive evidence for this theorem presented about 1974 by two scientists and they got the Nobel prize for it.
Of course, logic plays a part in the development of scientific theory (including Einstein’s theory of relativity); no one is saying otherwise. But such theories are not tested by logical “proofs”, they are tested by evidence.
The Nobel Prize does not define scientific theory; in fact, a number of novels have be given out for scientific “discoveries” which were later found to be wrong. In any case, Einstein did not receive his Nobel Prize for the Theory of Relativity, he received it ”for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”.
I think this matter is direct and straightforward, but it might be useful to discuss it here one last time, and I do acknowledge your right here to form your own opinions the way you feel fit.
Einstein derived his theorem of general relativity about 1915 by logical arguments. The first decisive evidence for it came in 1974. The testing of this theorem came many years after, because the technology at that time wasn’t advanced and testing does require a lab-like environment. Observed evidences and tested evidences are all linked to theorems through logical arguments. Many theorems have been mainly proved by logical arguments then they were verified by testing as the Pythagorean theorem.
Returning back to the main discussion that started this Einstein issue: I think the context in my previous comments was clear, but I will rephrase my statements to make them clearer:
You cannot use the suffering issue to derive, present, deduct, or verify the theorem of Einstein, but you can derive this theorem through other different arguments.
Similarly, You cannot use the suffering issue to verify or reject the existence of God, and the existence of God need to be discussed using other different arguments.
——>
Furthermore, if you transfer this question to a logical statement then it will be weak because it cannot be proved. Therefore, this statement cannot highlight a contradiction or an objection. Therefore, the question itself doesn’t have a punch in logical arguments.
4# The Question “Why worship a god that doesn’t actually DO anything?” has double claims. But if you assumed that God does exist then how do you know that God doesn’t do anything?
People when praying and asking God for things they don’t ask for breaking of the laws of nature, they ask for insights, support and good luck. These all can be given without breaking any laws.
So, If God does exist, then I don’t know how God interfere, it is totally a blank area to me. But if we assumed that God does exist then it is an extremely unsupported claim to say that God does nothing.
Actually, people all over the world certainly do ask for God to break the laws of nature: miraculous healings, success in ventures, weather changes, the list goes on and on . That sort of prayer is quite common.
Also, it’s not clear to me how it wouldn’t break the laws of nature for a God to provide “insights, support, and (especially) good luck”.
Isn’t “good luck” the domain of leprechauns?
I disagree with your points here.
Your references to laws of nature are an anachronism. These texts (Bible, Qur’an) are all pre-science. People knew that people did things. They didn’t know what caused things like rain, so their default hypothesis was that the gods did these things. There was no idea of violating or breaking natural laws. So if you wanted the gods to treat you favorably with all the things that they controlled, then give them what they want (sacrifices).
The Mosaic Covenant, the central philosophy of ancient Israel, was expressed as a vassal suzerainty treaty, a contract between a superior power and an inferior power. If Israel kept their contractual obligations, the God of Israel would bless Israel; and the converse.
People today think prayer, giving money, performing ceremonies, etc. are ways to influence the choices God makes about how he influences life on earth. They’re not thinking science. They believe God is omnipotent. And if you press them, that can include breaking natural laws. I know I’ll never succeed at challenging their doctrine of omnipotence. So I’ll say that we have no evidence that God is actually doing that today. And if you think about it, no evidence that God ever did that.
# The word “Sunnah” for ancient Arabs has a meaning that includes ways and processes. For example, “the Sunnah of the King” means the way (process, method) that this King is doing things in the kingdom.
Now, “Laws and Dynamics” are probably new concepts, however, it can easy be included within the word “Sunnah” because if I want to explain the meaning of “The Sunnah of the universe” then it will be: the way things are done in the universe. This does include the meanings of laws and dynamics.
Therefore, it is legitimate (for me at least) to say that “The Sunnah of God will not change” means that the laws of God for the universe will not change.
# I did present my understanding in a previous comment about the issue of suffering, which is caused by people playing with the laws of nature, or being unfair to each other during the impact of these laws.
So, let us discuss something different. I feel that you are looking at Christianity as all evil, but this is unfair: there are negative and positive points here. One of the positive point is the example you mentioned last in your comment:
—->>
—->>
There were many immoral rich people in the Roman world at the time of the Pagans, and they were not particularly motivated to give charities to the poor. But many of the immoral rich people in Christianity thought that they could bribe God by giving money to the poor, and this thought did channel money to the poor and the commons in the Roman empire. Also, there were many moral rich people at the time of the Pagans and they did give charity to the poor, but still, I can assume that moral rich people in Christianity probably gave much more money as they were more motivated due to the spirituality of the Christian faith.
So, I truly assume that Christianity was a merciful change to the poor and commons in the Roman empire.
I think it is important and fair to analyze the negative points and the positive points regarding the system as possible. This is the way that can develop the learning. Also, this is the way that can motivate the development of this system in way that can keep the positives and adjust the negatives.
What is your evidence that there were “many rich Christians” in the first two centuries or so?disabledupes{dd21426e12c97f29a0b32eb6dd9e53ba}disabledupes
Dan, This is not the subject here. I am not speaking about the propagation of Christianity. I am not speaking about Christianity in the first or second century. I am speaking about Christianity as a dominant culture in the Roman empire vs paganism as a dominant culture.
For the first and second centuries, I expect that there were poor and rich in the movement as in any spiritual movement, and the ratio between them is not definite. As part of solving the puzzle of the propagation of Christianity in the first century; I did assume that the first Greek Christians formed the Christian Brotherhood. They probably didn’t call it with this name, but I think that this is a reasonable conclusion for a minority new spiritual movement. And the Christians through this brotherhood did support themselves socially. I also assumed that churches started as an outcome of this brotherhood.
But this is not the subject in my previous comment. I was speaking about Christianity vs paganism in the Roman empire, and I think Christianity was a merciful change for the poor and commons in that empire.
I can’t reply to the comments directly, so I address rich Christians here.
If you believe the gospel narratives, several rich people are mentioned. Acts 16:14 cites Lydia, a seller of purple, hosting at least Paul and Silas. Paul collected funds among assemblies to send to Jerusalem Christians in need. Christians became known as a community that cared for one another. That’s one reason it required a public initiation ceremony (baptism) to ward off freeloaders.
We don’t have records to confirm it, but I and others think Christianity began among Greek religious philosophers who had been contemplating the idea of a universal sacrifice. They weren’t known for their poverty.
Christianity in its original form didn’t require monotheism. Most of the earliest Christians had been polytheists. It’s unknown how many still were. Christians and polytheists weren’t disjoint sets.
Thank you HistoricalChristianity.
I do appreciate the examples you mentioned, which I wasn’t aware of in this particular context.
However, my assumption here is that the first Greek Christians followed Jesus to the letter to point that they went for circumcision, which I assume would be a painful experience for a grown-up man. But his how serious they were.
But after the destruction of the temple in 70AD, the churches gained independence from Jerusalem, and scattered into so many denominations. One of the recognized denomination in the end of the second century was the Monarchianism. They advocated that Jesus wasn’t more than a human that was adopted by God. It was represented by Paul of Samosata (the Bishop of Antioch). However, the Trinitarian churches were united against him to the point that they requested the support of the Roman Pagan Emperor Aurelian for this matter. Aurelian did summit the “first imperial-Christian council” for this matter in 272AD and the council concluded to depose Paul.
So, the idea that the first Christians were polytheists might probably be inaccurate.
OmarRobb, I think the first Christians were Gentiles, for several reasons. Paul’s assemblies were mostly Gentile and outside of Judea. The ideas of Christianity were compatible with Greek religious thought. The Greek mystery religions were already thinking about a universal sacrifice. They followed the religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus (Judaism). Those stories about Jesus were told much later. Jesus may have been portrayed as Jewish in hopes to gain Roman religio licita legal protection as an ancient religion. Only after that did it make sense to think a Jewish God would want followers of Jesus to obey Jewish laws. Paul’s assemblies were never dependent on Jerusalem. The Manicheans didn’t appear until the 3rd century. Monarchianism is late second century. But there were many other more significant variants much earlier. Several Docetic variants thought Jesus was a man or a god-man, adopted by God at his baptism. Many Gnostics viewed Jesus as a Gnostic aeon which emanated from Sophia, which in turn emanated from the pleroma (fullness) of God. That’s the view you see in the Johannine literature.
I find it so perplexing when Christians claim that God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Because there are plenty of scenes in the Torah that suggest God is none of these things.
Ah, I’m not saying the syllogism comes out of the Bible!
illogician: “I find it so perplexing when Christians claim that God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Because there are plenty of scenes in the Torah that suggest God is none of these things.”
BDEhrman: “Ah, I’m not saying the syllogism comes out of the Bible!”
So many debates for and against the existence of the monotheistic God center on the three attributes All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Loving/good/beneficent. Like three legs of a tripod, if you knock out just one the hypothesis fails.
So, where DID this trio of attributes take root? It’s certainly not present in the OT — Job is just one obvious counter-example.
My sense is that the Psalms and elsewhere that laud YHWH’s mercy and kindness are just standard sucking-up that’s endemic in ancient liturgy; a plea to the god to be so, even if the god can’t be held to it.
Thoughts?
The first on record to come up with a comparable syllogism was the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. It hit the western world with some of the Enlightenment philosophers (Locke, etc.)
“What kind of God is this? Do we think that everything would be made right if the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust were “replaced” by having six million additional Jews born in the next generation?”
Yes, this sums it up pretty succinctly. The God of Job is a brute who doesn’t even recognize that one single murdered individual differs from another.
Certainly by being included in holy scriptures this piece of literature has a reason to be studied. If it were simply a folktale one would not take the portrait of God as endorsed by all that is holy. Thus it is interesting that the tale is still included in the Bible. Perhaps the later editors of the Torah could not simply decide to drop it. Shouldn’t we first remember that it didn’t happen? Historically, there was no Job.
Would a possible rationale for being included in the Bible be “readers should beware of written arguments about God and suffering. He is beyond reasoning. Let’s include this horribly unlikely story for them to study.”
In a similar manner as Greeks inability to recognize the square root of 2 as a number, so moralists are unable to recognize a solution to the problem of why God allows suffering. “Don’t expect the Bible to explain suffering. It happens. Deal with it. “
My sense is that the people who decided what would be in the Bible didn’t find the story horribly unlikely! At least I’d say most readers today don’t….
Interesting that being ” God fearing” has been considered a positive quality through the ages. Thus believers offer gifts, praise and prayers. But the great commandment above all others is ” to love the Lord your God”.
Loving your God warts and all would seem to be a pre-requisite for being able to love your enemies. Jesus doesn’t curse his God either. He laments being abandoned on the cross, but otherwise accepts the vision of a God who can do a lot of damage, children and other innocents included.
Disquieting as it may be, the reasons for suffering being random are many. It is, actually, the truth. Creating a God who is only good and loving curtails the very essence of an omnipotent yet inscrutable God ( ie, God could end suffering, but chooses not to do so) and is neither an option for addressing the issue of evil and suffering in the world nor a reliable theological approach.
The issue of the ” reward” after the tragedies that befall Job is indeed blood curdling. But…. would Job be better off without it, remaining in unspeakable pain and without any family or support?
As we reason from within a suspension of disbelief, we must consider what believers see. The idea of deriving moral judgement from the Judeo-Christian God ( sorry, Christians, I don’t believe Christianity has a different and better God than the one we Westerners know) is no longer relevant. Prophets, leaders , philosophers have transmitted both the dicta and the questions. Even simple people have contributed.
Gratefulness for the magnificence of Creation and for ourselves and what we do have,a Creation which might be mathematically quite an impossible occurrence , is the laughing face of a pair of Venetian masks, the other a crying one. As Job himself asks, rhetorically, won’t we take the good with the bad? Particularly when we – not God- are responsible for so much of the bad, either by commission or omission.
The rest of the pain and the evil are random. The folktale tells the truth, the way things are, with or without a God.
I still wonder if in the vast realm of Scripture, canonical or not, there is anything remotely similar to Job, or if Job is completely unique.
I cannot help thinking that people may be looking at this narrative (presumably no one thinks it is historical) from the wrong end. The theme of the story seems to be how we, humans, should respond to suffering, rather than why suffering exists. The main character is Job, not God. God, the Satan, the wife, and the friends are supporting actors and necessary for the story, but they are secondary characters. If the author(s) of this piece had started with an outline, it would have been: Job is very prosperous and very devout, Job loses all his wealth but remains devout, Job regains all his wealth. From a literary standpoint, from the standpoint of the authors, the first part required Job to have no suffering, and at the time prosperity would have meant having land, livestock, and family. Also, for the story to work, it was necessary for Job to believe it had all come from God. If Job had had only land and livestock but no children, the story would have been weaker, and if he had believed that he had earned all his wealth by his own work, the story would not have worked at all.
The second part required Job to be exposed to great suffering. He had to lose everything, land, livestock, and children, and to believe it had all been taken away by God. If he had only lost some livestock, or some children, the story would have been much weaker. Also, if they had all been lost due to some human agency, such as an invading army, or due to Job’s own mismanagement, the story would not have worked as well. It may not have been necessary, from a literary standpoint, for God to be the actual cause, or the entire cause, rather it was necessary for Job to believe that God at least allowed everything. So, what options did the authors have? The children had to go, and God had to be believed to be the cause, or at least to have been able to prevent the loss. And then the third part required Job to regain everything, land, livestock, and children. Again, if the livestock or the children had not been replaced, the ending would have been weaker, and Job would have still not been entirely prosperous.
How did you feel about your own kids growing up and potentially choosing to have faith?… i think about this now for my 10 and 12 year olds.
Did you worry about them possibly choosing a belief system you feel passionately against, or were you relaxed about them exploring religion?
Job faced hardship but he never questioned the existence of God (he either remained faithful or was angry at God). Did Job ever consider that his life was no more important than any other organism’s, and that maybe there is no god to love him or care if he died? I fear that the latter might be hard for individuals facing hardship *and* who might be prone to acting on intrusive thoughts about the value of their own lives. It’s interesting that in the medical literature, religion is one protective factor against suicide attempts/completion. When individuals are down, perhaps religion is an easier assist than more intellectual rationales, like reflecting on the thoughts of stoics (they could be ambiguous about suicide… Paul in Philippians?) or what Simone de Beauvoir described in The Mandarins. Humans evolved with religion, it must confer a selective advantage, at least for some.
ARe you asking me myself? I raised my kids in the church till they were mid-teenagers. One of them declared they were an atheist at age 8; the other waited till college.
Reading this, I suddenly realized a parallel that should have been obvious: the binding of Isaac. As with Job’s children, God tests his acolyte by putting an innocent in danger (or to death).
That leads me to wonder if anyone has explored this similarity? And if not, do you have a PhD candidate handy who’s looking for a thesis topic?
I’m sure they have! But God klling children isn’t quite the same as testing to see if someone else will follow his order to do so. I’d say they are different kinds of “test,” and neither pleasant to think about.
It’s pretty obvious that the god of the OT is a monster, anyone who thinks otherwise has allowed their faith to warp their brains. As stated multiple times, this is presented as a bet, on a whim! And you commit the common offense of discounting the servants as if they’re no better than the animals, as if the way servants were viewed at the time was OK. Job had a large number of servants and they were all slaughtered [We might also wonder why Satan, who should understand what god is, want to bet against it?] Then there is the escape form Egypt where god chose to torture and torment the Egyptians and ultimately slaughter all their first born children. The Pharaoh wanted to let them go, god chose multiple times to torture and kill. Why not soften his heart so he would let them go? God visited the sins of Adam&Eve on all their descendants, ALL of humanity. Considering god made humans knowing the vast majority would not meet its standards, it got billions and billions of torture subjects vs a few billion to worship it, hmmmm.
I don’t think the OT has one understanding of God — quite teh contrary, there are very different portrayals.
I understand that, it’s kinda obvious and inescapable, except to the literalists, they prove quite capable of escaping anything. I’m not sure of the relevance of your response. The question was ‘is the god in Job worthy of worship’, my response addresses that but also gives reasons to say no for other examples of that god. Is there some ‘understanding’ that is objective in any way? Can you honestly claim the god in the OT is NOT a monster?
To go along with my theme of it all being incoherent nonsense:
Why does this god command worship? This is an eternal, omnipotent thing, possibly outside of time, likely an incoherent claim in itself. Why would it create us meatbags, us utterly insignificant critters, and then expect us to worship it, and even more ridiculous, and monstrous, get so bent out of shape if we didn’t do it well enough that it would torment&torture us for eternity? It’s all so absurd as to be laughable. That there are so many very bright folks who take it seriously demonstrates how faith can warp one’s mind.
You can’t say the God of the OT is a monster if there are DIFFERENT portrayals of God in the OT. Which part of the OT do you mean?
Jesus, Dr. Ehrman, that’s a tall order. There are lots of different portrayals and there’s also tons of different interpretations. What should be at issue, to me, is the god most Christians claim to believe in. They don’t see lots of different gods getting portrayed, that would be blasphemous to many, and not just the literalists I don’t think. I listed a few of the parts, I could probably go 10 times the 200 word limit, isn’t it enough that there are numerous examples of monstrous behavior, does it really matter if it’s not the same version of god? The one in Job IS a monster. If someone is a saint 6 days out of the week but spends one day eating baby meat pizzas, I still say the guy is a monster, and I bet everyone that knew him those 6 days would day ‘that isn’t the John I know’. My main point is there is plenty of monstrous behavior by a ‘god’ in the OT, and for Christians, it’s the same god that they claim is omnibenevolent, loving god. And that is massively warped thinking, IOW insanity..
The problem cited by mechtheist is a direct consequence of the doctrines of inspiration held by Fundamentalist and some Conservative Christians. Biblical text present a wide range of opinions about the nature of God. The doctrines of inspiration claim that all of them must be true. Resolving those contradictions is a fool’s errand called theology. It prevents these Christians from understanding the diverse ideas of diverse authors in diverse times.
Broadly, the modern Christian idea of God is that of a philosophical god. If a god didn’t have all these omni- superlative attributes, it wouldn’t be worthy of calling a god. It’s the Anselm Ontological Argument, second edition. “God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.… And [God] assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist.” Anselm is defining a philosophical concept of God. His conclusion rests upon the assumption that the premise is true.
To expand on Dr. Ehrman’s answer, the Bible, the Qur’an, and all other ancient texts do not provide any information about the nature of God, gods, or reality. Each provides only what its author believed. That’s a lot of authors. Those beliefs are generally consistent with the morality of the culture. Much of the ANE believed it’s morally right to slaughter those you perceive to be your enemies. It’s still that way today.
Religious texts “do not provide any information about the nature of God, gods, or reality”, I agree, of course, they’re myths. But, there’s an awful lot reality that followers create for themselves and others, often EVERYONE else on the planet. The problem I’m trying to discuss is how the god christians perceive in the bible, and it’s ONE god from Genesis throughout the NT, is they see that god as not just worthy of worship but that not worshiping it will lead this ‘benevolent’ god to torment and torture you for eternity. That god is quite clearly a monster.
As to morality, most believers claim morality is absolute, unchanging. What culture applauds slaughtering children and servants to win a bet made on a whim? What about worshipping a clearly monstrous god by your standards while claiming it’s omnibenevolent, insisting on defining morality by that ancient god’s commands?
In Ehrman’s recent video on the KJV, he laments literalists not using their heads in believing the nonsense of literalness and inerrancy. I’m claiming the bible and the religion as a whole rests on a foundation that is no less absurd, and obviously so.
I’m actually replying to your post above dated 3/26, it doesn’t show a ‘reply’ link, don’t know what’s up with that.
“a fool’s errand called theology”
I think Dr. Ehrman would be extremely resistant to accepting the idea that, if there are no gods, then all theology is essentially worthless, empty of meaning, a monumental waste of time, effort, and bloodshed, but it’s true. It’s kinda horrific when you actually think about the reality of it all. The fact that billions have belief in these god(s) and the enormous impacts these beliefs have on the history of the species is really irrelevant to the truth of this claim. Ehrman has discussed an aspect of this, comparing the little we have of what Jesus said to the religion we have today. What you see is a long history of accretion of made-up claims with made-up justifications, all unencumbered by reality-checks. It’s why religions will almost always be schismatic, all have equal claim to being the true faith. My main point–It’s really obvious that christianity is based on a series of transparently absurd beliefs that require faith to blind believers to the absurdities.
I think the problem is that if you haven’t read any serious theology it’s easy to say that it’s a bunch of brainless and absurd nonsense. That’s what fundamentalists say about evolutionary biology or cosmology — they attack what they don’t know and don’t understand. For me, I choose not to follow their example.
mechtheist, it’s that doctrine of inerrancy that forces Fundamentalist Christian theologians to try to synchretize all these conflicting ideas. The Marcionites (a Docetic sect) thought the god of the Old Testament was a wrathful tyrant. The god of Jesus was a loving save-the-world god. Therefore the god of Jesus had to be a different god. Theology is an art of rationalization.
Dr. Ehrman, I have great respect for you, but your accusation is misguided. I have read plenty of serious theology, attended a Bible institute, taken many classes, and so on. But I have never been satisfied with the great lengths theologians must go to rationalize the different ideas expressed in biblical texts in the effort to syncretize a coherent doctrine. That’s systematic theology. While Tanakh uses the phrase ‘spirit of God’, it never expresses the Gnostic Christian idea of the Holy Spirit. That makes Tanakh completely irrelevant to forming a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Johannine community had their own ideas. To pretend their ideas were the same as those of all the other authors invites confusion. The synoptic authors went to great lengths to explain why the ideas of Christianity were unknown during the lifetime of Jesus. John doesn’t even try to do that. Gospel diarists practiced pesher to claim that ancient texts were about current events. Theologians claim thousands of texts in Tanakh are about Jesus, when the authors had nothing even remotely like that in mind. To me, understanding the Bible means understanding the ideas each author intended to communicate. You should recognize that philosophy.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your criticism. The views you’re expressing are the ones I hold.
mechtheist, Fundamentalist Christian theology is based on the premise (assumption) that all ideas expressed in the Bible are true. Theology is the effort to create doctrines consistent with all biblical texts, or which can be coerced into those texts (eisegesis). That’s independent of whether any of those ideas are indeed true, or even if there are any gods. People have written books about the theology of Harry Potter. A theology is good only to the extent that it is consistent with biblical texts. It’s not evaluated on its truth, which is untestable.
No other religion is based on that premise.
Dr. Ehrman, yes, I practice historical-critical hermeneutic, for all the reasons you cite in Jesus, Interrupted. I recognize that the views expressed in some texts conflict with the views expressed in other texts. These are big philosophical differences, not just minor details. Genesis 1:28, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”, expresses both a polytheistic view (El was head of the Canaanite pantheon) and a simple explanation for why human gods look like humans. Many texts in Tanakh show Israel as being polytheistic, only gradually and intermittently being henotheistic / monalatrous. Fundamentalist systematic theology tries to force these texts to be consistent with a monotheistic doctrine. Do we disagree on any of this?
So, where do you think I’m off base, justifying your accusation, “I think the problem is that if you haven’t read any serious theology it’s easy to say that it’s a bunch of brainless and absurd nonsense.” I’m just saying theology is impossible. It’s impossible to harmonize a doctrine of monotheism with clear texts showing polytheism and an inspiration doctrine that all those texts must be true.
Sorry, I think you”re misunderstanding me. When I talk about reading serious theology I mean reading the scholarship of serious modern theologians; I’m not talking about biblical interpreters/interpretations. Exegesis and theology are very different enterprises, even if, for many exegetes and theologicals, connected in some ways. But most serious theologians today — I’m not talking about fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals, are as convinced as the rest of us that the Scriptures are filled with mythical and legendary material and are completely historically contingent, not literal desriptions of the past that have to be “explained” in some way.disabledupes{fd74dd0e19a2e7b291c6fe55882607a4}disabledupes
Dr. Ehrman, I think I now understand our difference. I’m referring to Conservative (not necessarily Fundamentalist) Christian theology. Theology that at least claims to be based on biblical texts. That’s my focus. Broader, Christian theology includes consideration of other sources like non-canonical texts, church fathers, apostolic succession, and so on. For me, explaining a text means explaining what message the author was intending to communicate.
Much more broadly, theology could literally be called thinking about God. That need not be anchored in any text or authority. The Anselm Cosmological Argument is of that nature. Conservative Christian theology does that when they declare attributes of God (omniscience, omnipotence, pure goodness). They are creating a philosophical god, largely in a vacuum. They will attempt to cite biblical prooftexts to support their view. They often don’t recognize the use of hyperbole.
I’ve read lots of pathetic apologists attempts to ‘explain’ or ‘justify’ god’s behavior and the rather horrific things in the bible. They’re basically garbage, e.g., the justifications for hardening the Pharaoh’s heart seem not to care that children were tortured and murdered, Pharaoh was a bad man so somehow it’s OK to torture everyone and kill who knows how many children. It’s really easy to turn a christian into a monster, all you have to do is get them to justify what’s in the bible. You can find numerous examples on youtube of attempts to justify the slavery in the bible. The apologists will first try to lie about it, then you can watch in horror as they twist and warp their basic humanity, it’s really kinda frightening.
I enjoyed reading your series of comments Omar Robb. They were enlightening!
OmarRobb you really make fantastic points and thank you for sharing. Your comments helped me understand the story better. I also feel that the Quranic verses you shared drive home the points you made.
I have interpreted Job as a person who was on top of the world being dragged down to the gutter and the consequential feelings of anger, disappointment and questions of why are what make the story of Job so compelling and able to stand the test of time. In this story, the authors use a wager in the heavens for the awful things to happen, rather than creating more realistic scenarios. But the bottom line is that absolutely terrible things befell Job, and he responds to it. To me its a great study in this light.
As others have stated, taken as a “story” rather than suspending disbelief and thinking that the Creator actually made a bet with the accuser to inflict all the suffering and torment on Job and his family, than feelings of an unmerciful or unjust heavenly body are removed. And the real value of the story comes into focus.
This is definitely a thought provoking article, from an ethical and also from an historical standpoint. Since there seem to be two viewpoints expressed, do we know anything about the two conflicting sources? Different factions within the Hebrew religion, perhaps?
Nope, all we have are teh anonymous texts.
Bart – such an insightful commentary. Thanks for writing it. I’ve thought about what it must have been like for one of Job’s sons to run into town to catch a Euripides play and a fig shake, and on the way home have a friend tell him that all of his siblings are dropping dead, and by-the-way, how long have you had that nasty rash? What must have been going through Job’s son’s head? As far as we know, the son wouldn’t have done anything wrong. The righteous Job would have trained his children in the way they should go, and they would not have departed from it. Proverbs 22:6.
I don’t want to worship a god like the one in the book of Job.
If he really exists, I am just glad that I am not righteous enough to attract his attention and have him commend me to Satan.
Though this piece of wisdom literature was eventually included in the Jewish canon, it’s not a Jewish book, so it’s not about the God of Israel. It’s about a generic god. It’s not about whether you think this is a good or a bad god. It’s about which of the authors’ explanations you like best. Perhaps the conclusion: God doesn’t care what you think, it’s just the way it is.
The alternative to the ideas in Job is an admission that your ideas about God are wrong. God doesn’t really reward good people or punish bad people. Good and bad things just happen. That threatens the foundation of all religions of the ANE. If the gods don’t do this, what do they do? Does that depend on our sacrifices? Are there even any gods?
Christianity brought a very clever creative solution. With Jesus as the universal sacrifice, no one ever need offer any sacrifices to any gods ever again. So keep your religions and their gods, but remove any human obligation except to believe.
You raise a lot of great issues. Of course they are all swept away by one singular powerful force. Scriptural infallibility. If its in the canon then its perfect and all our questions are dismissed right? Well thats a bit too convenient. Infallibility is the refuge of many authoritarian abuses and dysfunctions through history. One would think that infallibility would be something patently obvious rather than something we are scolded into accepting by faith. “Wisdom is proven by her works” and “you shall know them by thier fruit” Yet we are told to model Jesus love while accepting his angry past abuses as Jehovah.
I think Job is a great example of how primitive minds rationalized suffering in light of the potential of an all powerful God. But that doesnt make it true or right. Its just the best they could come up with at the time.
Yet the problems within Job do provide a valuable excercise in moral logic. We may grow far more by deconstructing it, than swallowing it without question.
By the way, how did the author of Job get the scoop on the conversations in the heavenly courts anyway? Hmmm?
Good ears…
Your last sentence shows you’re on the brink of understanding ancient wisdom literature and even Jewish prophetic and apocalyptic literature. The latter two are explanatory, not predictive. Without evidence (of course), they hypothesize events as resulting from actions by God. Babylon was evil because they conquered Judea, but the God of Israel made them do it to punish Judah for disobedience. And later, they will call Cyrus a messiah because he let Israel back into their homeland.
The alternatives are unpalatable. God is impotent. Or your ideas about God are wrong.