Why is the old testament so evil
Is the God of the Old Testament Evil - Gary Anderson
hey friends let's let's find our seats
it's so wonderful to see all of you here
this evening let's just have a seat get
comfortable very comfortable so glad you
guys are here welcome everyone I'm
Carter Sneed I'm the director of the
Notre Dame Center for Ethics and culture
and I'm delighted that you've joined us
this evening for the Center for Ethics
and cultures 18th annual Fall Conference
our Center our conference can vote now
we're very excited about that
through every human heart on good and
evil now I see a lot of familiar faces
and friendship is an important part of
what we do here at the Center for Ethics
and culture but I also see some new
faces so I'm going to tell you a little
bit about the Center for those of you
who are joining us for the first time
the Center for Ethics and culture is
dedicated to sharing the richness of the
Catholic moral and intellectual
tradition through teaching research and
engagement at the highest level across a
range of disciplines we do this through
academic research and of course the Fall
Conference is the centerpiece of our
academic programming it's the greatest
manifestation of our of our conference
contributions academia and we also have
a relatively new robust publication
series several different series with the
University of Notre Dame press in
conjunction with our wonderful friend
and partner Steve Rin the director of
the Notre Dame press in addition to
academic research we have a program of
student formation we host a program
called the Sauron Fellows Program and
right now we have about 200
undergraduate and graduate students whom
we mentor provide advice to give special
access to our VIP speakers put on
special events and sponsor and fund a
variety of wide variety of summer
internships over the course of the
summer all over the world at the Vatican
and Congress in Hollywood all over the
world in addition to our academic
research and student formation we also
are quite committed to engagement in the
public square speaking in Notre Dame's
voice out and on behalf of the common
good and human dignity and of course a
culture of life and then finally and
most recently we've
a new program assisting the university
in its hiring for Catholic mission we
are now about to offer funding to
department so I'm a competitive basis
around the university to hire tenure and
tenure track faculty that the part that
those departments would like to hire
whose interests in commitments overlap
with that of the Center for Ethics and
culture so that is those are the sort of
the four ways in which we try to share
and embrace and transmit the richness of
the Catholic moral and intellectual
tradition both on campus as well as off
campus the fall conference has become
our largest annual event it's a truly
unique and exciting gathering of
scholars students and guests from around
the globe it's become a wonderful
opportunity to come together and grapple
with some of the most vital questions of
ethics culture and public policy today
more than 750 guests have registered for
this year's conference and we're looking
forward to spending time in conversation
and reflection with you in the days
ahead we have an extraordinary slate of
graduate students emerging scholars
colloquium and invited speakers joining
us this year
now on the theme of the conference many
of you no doubt recognized the illusion
in the title of this year's conference
through every human heart the great
Russian novelist historian and Nobel
Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn used
the phrase in the Gulag Archipelago in
which he writes quote gradually it was
disclosed to me that the lines
separating good and evil passes not
through States nor Bateen between
classes nor between political parties
either but right through every human
heart through all human hearts the this
line shifts inside us it oscillates with
the years and even within the hearts
overwhelmed with evil one small
bridgehead of good is retained and even
in the best of all hearts there remains
an uprooted small corner of evil we
wanted to explore this intractable
problem of good and evil residing within
each human heart and what it means for
human flourishing and the common good
the theme while of course timeless took
on special significance for the center
this year we are proud to announce this
year the launch of the center for ethics
and culture Sultan eats in Syria
here at the University of Notre Dame
press which will make available the
works of this essential author including
works not previously translated into
English bringing salts and Eaton's
prophetic voice to a new generation of
readers the first book in the series
will be released later this month March
1917 is the fifth installment insults
NEETs ins red wheel series which salts
neaten considered to be his greatest
work telling the story of the russian
revolution copies are available for
pre-order from Notre Dame press in the
publishers room across the hall our
thanks again to my good friend Steve Rin
the director of Notre Dame press who did
so much to make this collaboration with
the Sultanate's and family possible now
finally just to close with a note of
thanks as always we'd like to thank our
generous benefactors without whom none
of our work would be possible and in
particular we'd like to thank Tony and
Christi de Nicola as well as George Mays
to the fellows students and affiliated
faculty at the Center for ethics and
culture who helped make the life of the
center what it is today we'd like also
to offer our thanks and gratitude the
staff here at the conference center
particularly Lisa Verve inked and Eric
Francis as well as Kristen Garvey's
Podell in the Institute for scholarship
for the liberal arts and of course I am
blessed with the greatest staff not just
on campus here at Notre Dame but
anywhere in the world where staffs
assemble mine is the best
[Applause]
in particular I'd like to mention Tracy
Westlake Peter lob see Petra feral we
just hired Peter and Petra we call it
the pet shrine hiring Peter is running
our student programming and Petra is
running our culture of life initiatives
Kenneth John millenia SAR wonderful
communications specialist Laura Nash our
associate director for operations she's
the boss of everyone and then I would
like also to mention an extraordinary
person on our staff who did more for
this event than anyone else that I know
and that's Margaret cabinets
who runs our academic programming and
publications that give an anticipatory
round of supplies to Margaret cabinets
of course I'd like to thank all of our
student workers but I'd also like to
thank the people who make this event
possible we'd like to thanks the the
maintenance workers here at the
University of Notre Dame the janitorial
staff the food service folks everyone
who we don't whose names we might not
know who are working together with us to
make this event possible
so now I'd like to introduce this
evening speaker we could think of no one
better to open a conference on good and
evil than our dear friend professor Gary
Anderson Gary is the Hesburgh professor
of Catholic theology at the University
of Notre Dame where he specializes in
biblical studies with a focus on the Old
Testament and the history of its
interpretation particularly in early
Judaism one of the world's leading
scholars of Second Temple Judaism is one
of the few non Jewish scholars elected
to the prestigious Academy of Jewish
research his work addressing biblical
interpretation among early Jews and
Christians has won him grants from the
American philosophy Society the Lilly
Endowment and the Institute for Advanced
Study at Hebrew University in Jerusalem
where he served as a senior fellow last
academic year 2016-2017
prior to joining our faculty at Notre
Dame in 2003 Gary was the professor of
Old Testament and Hebrew Bible at
Harvard Divinity School
he received his Master of Divinity from
Duke University and his doctorate from
Harvard
he's the awful author of a number of
books including sin history charity the
place of the poor in the biblical
tradition and most recently Christian
doctrine and the Old Testament theology
in the service of biblical exegesis
tonight he will address the question is
the god of the Old Testament evil please
join me in welcoming my friend Gary
Anderson
[Applause]
thank you very much for that very kind
introduction I have to say it delighted
to be here
but there was maybe one small point of
disappointment with Carter and his staff
after hearing all of the good words
about them and that is generally when I
come to conferences and give a paper I'm
always asked to provide an abstract of
what my lecture is going to be about and
so one afternoon I spent the whole
afternoon kind of carved you know using
all the best prose I could assemble in
my mind for this abstract that was never
never requested from Carter so I thought
I would share it with you this evening
is the god of the old testament evil
here's the abstract
[Applause]
and with that we'll begin you should
have a handout in front of you if you
don't it won't be the end of the world
but the handout may make it easier to
follow what I will be doing this evening
every semester since my arrival at
notre-dame
I've taught our first required course in
theology to the incoming students my
habit has been to use the book of
Genesis as a window into the Old
Testament
no sooner however do we arrive at the
sixth chapter and the problems begin the
Lord as we read in the biblical text saw
that the wickedness of humankind was
great in the earth and that every intent
in yulie and the Lord was sorry that he
had made humankind on the earth and it
grieved him to his heart so the Lord
said I will blot out from the earth the
human beings I have created people
together with animals creeping things
and birds of the air for I am sorry that
I have made them but Noah found favor in
the sight of the Lord what kind of God
is this my students asked with one sweep
of his hand he wipes out every living
thing what could be more evil than that
and things don't get much easier as we
move forward
about a dozen chapters later we come to
the story of sodom and gomorrah and are
faced with another episode of wholesale
destruction then the Lord rained down on
Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire he
overthrew those cities and all the plain
and all the inhabitants of the cities
and what grew on the ground Abraham went
early in the morning to the place where
he had stood before the Lord and he
looked down towards Sodom and Gomorrah
and toward all the land of the plain and
saw the smoke of the land going up like
the smoke of a furnace and then if
things are not bad enough already well
there's always the book of Exodus
and the Lord said to Moses go down at
once your people whom you brought out on
the land of Egypt have acted perversely
they've been quick to turn aside from
the way that I commanded them they've
cast for themselves an image of a calf
and have worshiped it sacrificed to it
and said these are your God's o Israel
who brought you up out of the Land of
Israel the Lord said to Moses I've seen
this people how stiff necked they are
now let me alone that my wrath may burn
hot against them that I may consume them
and make of you a great nation the key
verse here is obviously that of verse 10
which I've highlighted God proposes to
destroy all of Israel and to rebuild a
new nation from the figure of Moses
formerly this is exactly what took place
during the flood though God had bound
himself by an oath never to repeat that
sort of destruction Exodus 32 escapes
the requirement of that oath by a legal
technicality and this instance God is
about to destroy only a single nation
rather than the whole world yet the
similarity is sufficient to shock the
sensitive reader the picture in short at
this point doesn't appear pretty at
least that's what my students certainly
take away it's not just that the flood
creates a challenge but the story of the
flood is repeated Genesis 6 is not some
rare and random act on the power of God
but it appears to be something we might
say baked into his character but to
anticipate where we're going it's
actually maybe paradoxically in this
repetition that we'll find at least part
of the solution to our problem but now
I'm getting ahead of myself we'll return
to that point but first I'd like to make
a few more general observations as the
German thinker
Hans got'em R once noted the
interpretation of texts is never
governed solely by the manifest content
of the text itself as though the text
were some kind of
objectively clear set of signs that
imprinted the same meeting on every
reader there is rather what he called a
fusion of horizons at play every time a
text is read that is the horizon of
meaning provided by the text engages
with the horizon of meaning brought by
the reader a challenge here is that
frequently the reader is not
sufficiently aware of what he or she
brings to a text an describes profundity
or barbarity to the text itself what I'd
like to suggest this evening is that
part of the reason we are so bothered by
these stories is that our understanding
of the relationship of Mercy to judgment
is somewhat naive we've been deeply
shaped by what Phillip briefed
Christopher lash and others have called
a therapeutic mindset and one of the
effects of this cultural demeanor has
been the weariness of making strong
moral claims about the nature of good
and evil
specifically the notion that good should
be rewarded and evil punished a world
shaped by the therapeutic process
recoils at the notion of moral absolutes
and the theological sphere this is
resulted in the soft-pedaling of stories
like the flood and scenting setting at
center stage stories such as the
prodigal son in short elevating the god
of the new testament here identified
with mercy over the god of the old here
identify with harsh moral judgments now
I have nothing against the story of the
prodigal son after all
it's in my Bible but I think we make a
big error if we set the God of that
story over against the god of the flood
what I'd like to suggest perhaps
somewhat daringly is that even judgment
can be merciful but in order to
appreciate this I think we need to
enlarge a bit our own horizon of meaning
and to do this this evening what I'd
like to do is to show you a brief clip
from the award-winning TV show
Breaking Bad Breaking Bad was created by
Vince Gilligan
a man raised in the Catholic Church and
who has said in several interviews that
the show deals explicitly with the
challenge of living the moral life by
persons who've rejected the reality of
God the scene we're going to watch could
not be more therapeutic it's set in the
context of a 12-step program for those
suffering from drug abuse but to
appreciate the dialogue that takes place
in this 12-step group we're going to
need to know its context and here I have
to give both metaphorically and
literally a trigger warning because
we're going to see a man pull the
trigger and we'll hear a bullet and it
is violent and I know there are people
that would prefer not to watch episodes
like this I only say in advance that you
won't see the individual who is shot
actually be shot but you will hear the
trigger so that is my trigger warning
leading up to this therapy session then
following on these thoughts is a very
disturbing scene in which one of the
main characters of the show Jesse
Pinkman fires a bullet into the head of
a completely innocent man this brutal
scene is filmed brilliantly Gilligan
will put you right in the center of the
action no doubt this is meant to show
how deeply troubled Jesse is about the
task he's about to perform and it is in
the wake of that profound disturbance
that he and feels that we will encounter
him later when he comes to the 12-step
group and that's the point of focus for
me this evening so listen carefully to
how he describes in that 12-step group
what he's done in the first episode from
this clip can you show the clip I was
warned not to use this clip from
Breaking Bad because to introduce a kind
of academic lecture after that
performance I'm going to pale in
comparison but
I'm gonna proceed in any event there are
a couple things that I would like to
flag in this little clip that you've
watched first of all I think it's
important to know that the drug world
truly is an underworld that is most of
us I think certainly speaking for myself
take the authority of our law
enforcement agencies for granted we
presume at the end of the day that bad
guys will get their comeuppance and
because we can presume that we can go
about our business without undue worries
but if we dip our heads below the
surface of this civilized frame of
reference
we'll encounter a very different world
and this as Jesse attests is a
terrifying experience for Jesse killing
an innocent man and then walking away
without any consequence provokes not
simply a moral crisis but an existential
one he says the thing is if you just do
stuff and nothing happens what's it all
mean what's the point these are
questions about the very meaning of life
not just ethics the leader of the group
obviously not in sync with the type of
question that jesse is framing exhorts
him to let it go kicking the hell out of
yourself he says doesn't give meaning to
anything let me make an aside here
I don't think Gilligan here in this
episode is critiquing a 12-step program
on its own terms rather I think he's
using the occasion to criticize what
happens when a limited therapeutic
modality becomes a general worldview and
that is how I take Jesse's follow-up
comment so I should just stop judging
and accept myself no matter what I do
hooray for me because I'm a great guy
it's all good no matter how many dogs I
kill and if you watch Breaking Bad
you'll see
not just dogs but a lot of people die in
the underworld I just do an inventory
and except now I don't think anyone no
matter how committed they may be to the
therapeutic mindset could walk away from
this encounter not wishing for a display
of justice and even the group leader
breaks character after Jesse's
intervention and won't accept that his
condone his actions what we see in this
episode and I think this bear is
underscoring is that before Jesse can be
forgiven and I think certainly he wants
to be forgiven but before he can be
forgiven his actions must be condemned
that's what he wants he ought to pay the
price for what he's done now if we bear
these thoughts in mind I think the
horizon of meaning that we bring to the
flood story will be slightly altered for
after all what God sees when he surveys
the world at the beginning of chapter 6
is exactly what Jesse has sensed after
slaying Gayle bedecker that is a world
awash in violence and no judicial force
sufficient to stem the tide most of us I
think like Jesse would agree that such a
world would be unlivable and as a result
in Genesis six God hits the reset button
so to speak and creates a new world from
a better moral stock the loins of noah
but in Genesis all is still not well
just one story later human beings are
back to their mischief building the
Tower of Babel God sees the danger
looming but this time is unable to send
another flood so he does the next best
thing he mixes up the languages so that
no single nation can exercise
totalitarian power over the others he
creates we might say a system of checks
and balances so the human wickedness can
be controlled
even if it can't be eliminated but what
about the story of the golden calf this
story again raises its ugly head how
much can we do mess to domesticate the
wrath of God during the flood God's
return to such an overly wrought
emotional state about sigh and I would
seem to present an unsurmountable
obstacle especially given the fact that
the story is so clearly patterned at
least in part on the story of the flood
itself but there is a significant
difference between these two stories
Noah though a survivor of the flood
achieves this end by and large in a
passive fashion here you might want to
flip your handout over to page 2 yes of
course Noah built the ark he loaded the
animals into it but Noah took no stance
for or against what God proposed to do
not to put too fine a point on it but we
couldn't say that Noah was simply going
along for the ride whereas Noah was
remembered by God God being the active
agent of remembering here Moses simply
the beneficiary of the action Moses on
the other hand stridently demands that
God remember his prior commitments
remember Abraham Isaac Israel your
servants Moses has addressed the
impending Cataclysm very differently
than Noah and how do we account for this
well let's look a little bit closer at
our text and Exodus 32 Moses
unlike Noah is taken into God's
confidence and consulted about what is
going to transpire now had God simply
wished to execute judgment he would have
said this I see that this is a
stiff-necked people and so my anger
shall blaze forth against them and
destroy them
and I will make of you a great nation
this sentence describes a unilateral
action on the part of God but that's not
the book of Exodus what God actually
says is this I see that this is a
stiff-necked people now let me be that
my anger may blaze forth and so forth
oddly God is requesting Moses his
permission before he proceeds a Jewish
tradition captures I think quite
accidental excellently the tonality of
this sentence
now let me be quoting the burst mexica
that my anger may blaze forth against
them and destroy them - what can we
compare this to a king who being angry
at his son placed him in a small room
and is about to strike him but at the
same time the king cried out for someone
to stop him the son's tutor who was
standing outside said to himself the
king and his son are in the room why
does the king say stop me it must be
that the king wants me to go into the
room and bring about a reconciliation in
the similar way God says to Moses let me
be and Moses said because what God wants
me to defend Israel he says let me be
and Moses then immediately interceded
for them but is not solely that God
requested Moses his help in this manner
but God also signaled the manner by
which Moses could be most effective God
tells Moses that should he leave him
alone he will make of him a great nation
but this way of putting the matter
clearly calls to mind an earlier promise
God had made back in Genesis 12 to make
of Abraham and his successors a great
nation Moses ever the skilful
interlocutor recounts the nature in
which God bound himself to this people
when he first promised to make
a great nation he says just like went
too quickly let's keep our hand out
remember
your servants Abraham Isaac and Israel
how you swore to them by yourself and
said to them I will make your offspring
as numerous as the stars of heaven and I
will give to your offspring this whole
land of which I spoke having been
reminded of his obligations God then in
verse 14 announces the punishment he had
planned to make he renounced the
punishment he had planned to bring upon
his people and of the verse a key
feature of this narrative is the
representational role that Moses plays
as the great Jewish biblical scholar
Yochanan muffs has argued Moses here is
not simply an exemplary human being
standing before God rather what muffs
argued is that Moses is representing
part of God to God he assumes a part of
the divine personality such that one
cannot properly pick out the full
identity of God by only attending to
what the subject identified by God in
the story says let's pause for a second
on this issue if we look at the chapter
as it literally presents itself we have
our two characters the Lord and Moses
each have speeches proper to each
character but what muffs is suggesting
is that what Moses says is what God
wants him to say in advance in essence
the figure of God not grammatically but
we might want to say semiotic lis is
represented by the two pieces of this
conversation such that one could gloss
it this way the Lord speaking in his own
voice that I have seen this people how
stiff-necked they are now let me alone
but then the Lord thought speaking in
Persona Moses why does your wrath burn
and God getting the better half of
himself renounces the punishment he had
intended
buff's writes God allows the Prophet to
represent in his prayer his own
attribute of mercy the very element that
enables a calming of God's angry and
vindictive feelings because the Prophet
then is a necessary in non-negotiable
element in the rendering of the identity
of God
a Jewish Midrash can go so far as to say
that God wept when Moses was ready to
hand over his soul to death God said who
will who will stand against me on the
day of my wrath
this means who will protect Israel in
the hour of my anger who will speak up
for them when they sin against me Moses
on this understanding is a necessary
actor in the narrative that depicts
God's character the identity of God
would look very different where he not
on the scene one of the issues that this
story then establishes I would like to
argue basing myself on what Jochen on
muffs has already written is the
necessary role of intercessory prayer if
one thinks about it
intercessory prayer is an odd thing does
God really need me to remind him that my
aunt Myrtle for example is having
surgery tomorrow wouldn't he prefer that
I do something more useful in my life
than running over to the Blessed
Sacrament and kneeling in prayer Evelyn
Waugh captured this problem beautifully
in his Sword of Honour trilogy during
his father's funeral Mass guy Crouchback
reflects on the problem of his own
spiritual lethargy for many years now
the direction in the garden of the soul
put yourself in the presence of God head
frog I come to mean a mere act of
respect like the signing of the visitors
book at an embassy or government house
he reported for duty saying to God I
don't ask anything from you I'm here if
you want me I don't suppose I can be of
any use but if there is anything I can
do
send me a text I'm updating wha-at and
he left it at that
I don't ask anything from you
well that was the deadly the deadly core
of his apathy that emptiness had been
with him for years now even in his days
of enthusiasm and activity for the
halvah dears enthusiasm and activity
however were not enough God required
more than that here's the key sentence
he had commanded all men to ask God
commands us to ask in other words God
has inscribed into his handbook for
administering the providential order an
important role for human agents God
needs our prayers and that need is on
display in the most prominent way
imaginable in Exodus 32 with this in
mind I think we can cast new light on
the story of sodom and gomorrah in this
story abraham like moses is troubled by
what God is about to do
he asks whether fifty forty five thirty
even ten righteous persons will be
enough to spare the cities God assures
Abraham that ten will be enough but
later after God has destroyed the cities
we can assume that not even ten
righteous persons were to be found but
the story doesn't end there in Genesis
1929 we read and if you have it on your
handouts I'm not sure I have a slide No
Oh slide so it was that when God
destroyed the cities of the plain God
remembered there's our key word again
God remembered Abraham and sent lot out
of the midst of the overthrow when he
overthrew the cities in which law had
settled the fact that God remembered
Abraham recalls both God's remembering
of Noah but also Moses's prayer that God
remember his promises he made Israel
what here in this
text has God remembered well I believe
he was attentive to one matter which
Abraham didn't mention in his
supplication but must have been the
thing he thought about most deeply and
most profoundly and that would be the
safety of his own immediate kinsman lot
in his family in other words God
remembered the prayer Abraham was too
humble to utter out loud before closing
let's take a look at what Benedict the
sixteenth has said about Moses
intercessory prayer I think we'll see
that Benedict the sixteenth is exactly
on the same page with everything we've
drawn from Jewish sources and the Jewish
scholar you'll come on muffs he writes
this as with Abraham in regard to Sodom
and Gomorrah so also now God reveals to
Moses what he intends to do as though
not wanting to act without his agreement
he says quote let me alone that my wrath
may burn hot but in reality Benedict
says let me alone is said precisely so
that Moses will intervene and ask him
not to do it thereby revealing that
God's desire is always to save and then
going beyond simply Moses rolled
Benedict also sees the relationship of
this text to the phenomenon of
intercessory prayer more generally
intercessory prayer makes divine mercy
so active within the corrupted reality
of the sinful man that it finds a voice
in the supplication of one who prays and
through him becomes present where
salvation is needed but that Benedict
says a little bit more that I think will
bring us back to the episode we saw in
Breaking Bad as with the two cities in
the time of Abraham punishment and
destruction point to the gravity of the
sin committed at the same time the
intercessory squat request is meant to
me
fest the Lord's will to forgive this is
the salvation of God which involves
mercy but together with it exposes the
truth of sin of the evil that is present
so that the sinner aware of and
reflecting rejecting his own sin can
allow himself to be forgiven and
transformed by God in these words I
think we see the desires of Jesse
expressed in the episode from baking Bad
returning once more Benedict the
sixteenth sees the back and forth
between God and Moses as being ordered
to the structure of intercessory prayer
to be sure but he also sees the display
the threat of God's wrath is
underscoring the true character of the
evil that's been perpetrated it can't be
ignored God's grace as Dietrich
Bonhoeffer so profoundly knew is not
cheap it can only be offered once an
honest appraisal of the sin itself has
been made well let me conclude by
returning to the first page of your
handout and reviewing those three texts
with which I began first Genesis 6 the
story of the flood puts us back in an
era we might say of time before time
this is not a historical narrative in
the simple sense of that term rather in
this story has in many of the stories in
Genesis 1 to 11 we see how God puts in
place the conditions in which human life
can flourish one of those conditions
being the establishment of the rule of
law and the importance of that I think
was addressed quite well by the clip we
saw from Breaking Bad second we saw in
Exodus 32 that this text bore only a
superficial resemblance to Genesis 6
I say superficial because though it
looks like God wants to destroy Israel
in the same fashion in which he
destroyed the world in Genesis 6 in fact
on deeper inspection Exodus 32 is really
expressing how deeply God wants Moses to
intercede on behalf of the people he has
sworn such deep feel T and that
intercession i emphasized should not be
understood as an act of opposition to
god though we're pitting man against God
but rather the ability the gift the
grace as it were for a human being here
Moses to participate in the mystery of
God's own character or being we must
avoid the error of guy Crouchback and
think that our service of God consists
simply of signing the guestbook and then
being on our way
God wah was careful to note commands us
to ask and finally we saw that in
Genesis is not Genesis 19 though there
would be much more to say about that
text if I had time this evening but for
our purposes Genesis 19 is simply a
variation on the issues that we have
seen presented in Exodus 32 so in sum I
think we are able to answer the question
posed by my lecture title with the
abstract I was going to offer Carter
that is with the resounding no at least
with respect to the three examples I
have discussed this evening I thank you
for your time and your attention
friends now we have time for questions
and engagement with our speaker and I'm
going to exercise the moderators
privilege and ask the first question if
I could
Gary and I'm gonna be a little bit
unfair because I'm gonna ask about
something you didn't talk about how do
does this pattern repeat itself in other
contexts in the Old Testament when there
are other events God commands things
that are somewhat shocking to our
sensibilities I'm thinking of punishing
Saul for not fully executing his is his
command in terms of wiping out the
entirety of a city and similar kinds of
interventions involving what looks like
the killing of men women and children
and alike so you're addressing the
problem of in Hebrew the term is head
room the band that's another problem I
can't you know certainly while standing
on one foot you know address that this
evening that would take I mean I think
the problem is addressable perhaps not
in every instance or in every detail
made hospitable to morally sensitive
Souls but I think that it is it it's
it's not certainly as bad as it looks at
first blush but no and that story I
don't think that this particular dynamic
isn't evidence though this dynamic that
we see with Moses at Exodus 32 becomes
part and parcel of the definition of the
Prophet in ancient Israel and we could
point to many many texts and the Book of
Psalms as just laden with this
particular spiritual demeanor of
reminding God in the Psalter you know
all the time the Psalter reminds God of
of what he's done and those reminders
are never innocent they're meant to put
before God the striking lack of divine
action on the behalf of the person you
know who's suffering you know if you're
the God who has done X you know look at
my situation now and notice the the
contradiction between the two and that's
how this almost puts his appeal before
God it's a it's a deep pattern within
the Old Testament Hebrew Bible friends
come to the come
the microphones you have microphones up
top as well as down here and engage our
friend professor Anderson and also
introduce yourself before you speak
please Amaya
I'm in mufti but I'm father Bill Daley
of the congregation of Holy Cross I run
a little Center for Notre Dame in Dublin
and in that role I also preach every day
and sometimes I think I'm a halfway
decent preacher and then I listen to you
Gary I realize how inadequate are my
gifts and my question a bit like
Carter's goes a bit beyond the four
corners of your presentation which I
found persuasive but how besides reading
your books have the ball I'm reading
them I don't care people read my books I
just want them to just want to survive
in yet how has ordinary and in this
sense in comparison to you right though
I'm ordained I'm Malay reader of
scripture by comparison to yourself how
does a lay reader of Scripture wrestle
with these texts to find this because
you have a gift in teaching of sounding
both as a scholar but as a believer and
the dynamic isn't merely scholarly right
but it's a human being wrestling with
God and finding him alive do you have
any way to share with us how we might in
our own reading of these texts have that
freshness and that capacity for surprise
that you bring in in encountering them
oh that's it I wish I had an easy answer
to that I think the all I can should
suggest is finding the authors that you
believe are trust about and pursuing
them in the text about which you know
they're willing you know to comment I
wish there was one author one commentary
series one this set of resources I could
send you to for the entire Christian
Bible I can't I can't do that
unfortunately but I think of the figures
I mentioned tonight I think that
Jochen on muffs is an extraordinary
figure and having a profound theological
Sensibility
at the same time being you know a really
a Phil alow Jian historical critic
without match and I highly recommend
almost everything he's written Benedict
the sixteenth is amazing as well I
happen to I mean one of my anxieties
about posing the title I did for this
lecture especially you know Carter's
question is that there's umpteen number
of texts and the Old Testament and in
the new for that matter that are
problematic for you know a modern reader
and I feared that in question answer I
would simply get them all listed for me
and I would have to provide in five
seconds an answer for all of them I
can't do that but I picked these because
they come out of my experience of
teaching there are also texts that are
prominently you know for grounded by
Dawkins their standard and Marcy and
another you know heretics of the church
so they are they are representative
they're not certainly unrepresentative
but I think finding scholars that you
can trust and reading them one I
remember reading someone saying with
respect to the Talmud authoritative
Jewish source for law which is mammoth
you look at it and you think how could I
ever begin but well you just you begin
with this and pursue pursue this line
and see how far it takes you with
understanding I think you have to find
the authors you like trust them and and
go where they lead you hi I'm Dustin
Kermit I'm a post here at Notre Dame
so this line of questioning might also
be supporters but it is directly related
to these passages so I'm like all about
wrath and Punnett whatever so I don't
have a I don't have a problem with the
fact that God is like punishing bad
people in these passages but I guess
what's troubling to me is it seems like
God must also be inflicting bad fates on
a lot of innocents like the flood must
have care lots of babies and animal
and spend plenty of babies and Sodom and
Gomorrha and God could have like sent
the kids with Lawton Abraham but he
doesn't they get burned up too so I
wonder if the focus on like justifying
divine punishment I think I agree with
all of that but I wonder if that doesn't
paper over the most troubling aspect of
these stories which is that it looks
like God punishes a bunch of people who
could have done anything
so I remember once a good text that
would illustrate I think the problem
that you've just voiced is the line it's
in Exodus but one can find it elsewhere
of God punishing the father you know the
father is the children the grandchildren
three generations do things would need
to be said about that text and I'm going
to get through the specific nature of
your question in just a second but
everyone forgets the fact that within
the context of that verse it said God's
graciousness goes to a thousand
generations his punitive wrath we might
say goes to three so I think the context
of the verse of course is to display for
the reader that you know in commencer
ability between God's grace and his
punishment
but I think that the other error that's
often made by readers as we think of and
this this confounds one's reading of
many biblical passages we think of sin I
and narrowly individualistic terms I
remember talking about this text once
when I was at Princeton as a New York
University I'm sorry as a fellow and
Michael Walzer was there and he said you
know any political scientist knows the
utter truth of these lines because what
these texts are really about and what
the Old Testament is more concerned of
than with individual sins are societal
sins is that when rulers or cultures do
terrible things let's think of the
French and the British dividing up the
Middle East after the fall of the
Ottoman Empire in 1917 in a way that was
completely artificial with respect to
the people that lived there it will be
the seceding generations or if you want
to think of the Portuguese in the slave
trade from Africa to the new world these
were decisions made by singular you know
groups of people for whom the
after-effects of the sin rebounds over
generations and affects innocent people
people that didn't perpetrate them and
they suffer they suffer terribly I think
that's what these texts are about you
know when we do things wrong a lot of
people you know fall you know under the
bus as a result of these actions part of
the issue here - and this would address
the the way in which you frame the
question is the Bible unlike you know
Thomas Aquinas doesn't always
distinguish primary and secondary
causation so when it says God does this
or God does that I think frequently what
one has to understand is God has ordered
the world in such a way that you know if
you organize your society in such a way
that you're bringing you know slaves
from Africa to the new world and you
know treating them the way they were
treated the problems generated by that
societal sin are not going to go away
in the generation they're gonna last or
if you divide up you know an entire
people the air people the Middle East in
a completely phony fashion as the way
the French and the British did then
what's happening in Syria today Lebanon
these are not big surprises these
weren't countries you know under Ottoman
rule and one could multiply this you
know a hundred times one can look at you
know even the state of Germany today the
problem of integrating the East East
Germany which remains difficult and that
was you know only a generation of
communist rule but what had put in place
was you know a disaster and lots of
innocent people suffered from that
babies you know what you know so on and
so forth so I think that you know is is
a very important dimension to bring into
these materials and I guess I would you
know I agree with Michael Walzer that
there is more truth in these texts than
actually you know more moral problems
again given the sense that we recognize
that the Bible unlike Thomas Aquinas is
not interested in distinguishing
neatly at every point primary and
secondary causation so God is ultimately
the one that stands behind all of this
and the Bible is quite happy to say that
figures like Thomas and the rest would
not thank you
my name is Jacob horn occur I have an
undergraduate philosophy student from
the University of st. Thomas in st. Paul
Minnesota my question has to do with
first the Breaking Bad scene then I'll
follow up situation so we see that
Jessie underwent some sort of
existential crisis when his evil acts
are not judged as evil so that he could
then receive forgiveness is there a
similar process when good acts go
unacknowledged as good is there a
similar existential crisis and what
happens when those acts are acknowledged
as good what's the game dick yeah I'm
sure there is but I guess the way you
frame the question I don't think quite
captures what I wanted to say about
Breaking Bad and you know maybe what I
had to say about wringing bad wasn't
quite accurate but I think you know what
we see in that that episode and I think
it's actually part of the whole show I
mean one of the things that's
interesting about the show at least to
me is that Jesse's drug usage if you
compare them if you know the show Walter
White who's you know squeaky-clean with
respect to drug usage and you would
think oh well just you know Walter White
is the moral man because he doesn't
condescend to this but Jesse does but
Jesse actually is a deeply sensitive man
Walter is something of a sociopath and
Jesse senses the horror of the drug
world it's not just killing one man but
the whole world provides a kind of you
know moral ethos that is existentially
for him unbearable and one of the
reasons he keeps returning to crystal
meth and he does all of these other
things is he just can't bear to see I
mean he doesn't have the maturity to
overcome it but he doesn't have the
barbarity of Walter White to simply kind
of go home and kiss his wife and pretend
everything's okay he really sees what's
going on and that horrifies him so this
this singular I mean that for him this
is this the crisis of killing Gail
bedecker that we saw in this episode is
really just stay and of PARs Porto proto
for for Jessie of what he sees as a as a
it's he's like he's living in Genesis
six the world that he occupies is
literally an underworld is a world that
he just he would prefer not to be part
of and that I think is the profound
crisis and that I think is its tie I
mean yes good acts that aren't rewarded
is certainly problematic but I don't
think it's on the order of living in a
world in which evil of this nature is
simply condoned blinked on and you just
walk your own way hi my name is
Alexander Monson I'm Catholic I'm
freshman to Holy Cross and one of the
reoccurring themes in the Bible is that
God is all-powerful and all-knowing if
he's all knowing how would he I'm just
trying to see how I how he's getting
Moses to try and talk him out of it
would he have known that Moses would say
hey don't do this or of would he you
know not know and hope that Moses would
try to talk him out of it so the Bible
both has you know profound philosophical
and theological dimensions of which
you've just Illustrated but it's also a
narrative and one of the things that
wants to establish within the domain of
its narrativity is the miracle of human
freedom which given the fact that we are
in commensurate with God will never be
able to square that with God's
omniscience so I'll give you just
there's many classic instances of this
which theologians have worried about for
generations and for which they'll always
worry because there are no answers
let's give just two in patristic
homilies when the gauge our angel
Gabriel comes and asks you know Mary at
the Annunciation
will she be willing will she say Fiat me
he will she say yes to the proposal the
Angels all stand on the edge of the
balcony and bated breath dying to know
because they know the whole future of
creation depends on her answer and the
theological tradition wants to say she
makes a freely chosen ascent but think
about what that means that means you
have to concede that she could have said
no well what if she says no does God put
the whole of human history at risk well
you want to say no he hasn't but you
don't want to say he's forced his hand
and the same thing goes in the garden of
gethsemane is that just a is that just
like a puppet tree that you know God's
just playing with Jesus he's but he's
not really worrying well you know
there's tomes of ink you know spilled on
that one and they'll never be a solution
because what we're speaking about on
this issue is the impossibility of ever
squaring the miracle of human freedom
with God's providential ordering of the
human race the but I mean it's not a
solution but the best I might want to
say capture ization of the problem I
think is provided in an essay I always
have my undergraduates read by a great
Israeli military Simone on the Genesis
story that Joseph's story it's a
striking story because in its atmosphere
it's dramatically secular meaning unlike
the other stories in Genesis God doesn't
appear and tell any of the characters
what to do they make all their choices
on the basis of their own mental you
know calculations and many of those
choices are horrible the threat to kill
Joseph being a great example of one but
at the end of the tale in chapter 50 the
whole reconciliation scene the Holden
numel of the of the episode turns on
Joseph saying you at what you did you
intended for evil but God used it all to
achieve his good and what Ricci 1 says I
think it's exactly right is that free
will does not cancel out divine
providence but think of also the implica
does that mean that God willed that the
brothers try to slay Joseph no one would
want to say that that would be horrible
but God utilized the free choices of the
brothers to do everything they did and
all the horrible choices of Joseph and
all the horrible choices of Jacob and lo
and behold poof God's designs in the end
you know achieved their goals that human
freedom and divine predestination do not
cancel one another out how do they do so
metaphysically Bible has no answer for
that it can only put you in front of the
mystery but I can't explain it my name
is Andrew I live here in South Bend I'd
say I agree with the question are a few
ones back who found some aspects of this
talk unsatisfying and that the problem
of the evil of God in the Old Testament
has never been about whether or not God
judges people but the disproportionate
character of that judgment so for
instance the killing of the innocent and
the flood of Noah or the spoke about the
Haram earlier and an explanation about
the systematic or systemic character of
evil also seems inadequate because we
wouldn't say you can just commit
genocide because there are larger
cultural complexes at work than
particular individual actions and it
seems like the early Christian community
whom none of us I assume would accuse of
moral therapeutic deism also found these
passages to be extremely problematic in
origin as an aegis or even Augustine's
own conversion was impossible before
Ambrose introduced him to spiritual
readings of these very passages in the
Old Testament so what is your position
on the very typical response by both
eastern and western patristic sand
spiritualizing these passages because of
how horrific they are so I guess what
the flood story would depend on whether
you think you know it's a historical
episode I think I said in my talk that
it's a gender the stories in Genesis 1
to 11 and
I my mind are not you know historical
episodes the way in which the rest of
the hebrew bible is an origin says as
much as well he doesn't say that about
the flood but he does say with respect
to the garden of eden who would ever
believe that god was a gardener blah
blah blah so i don't think that's you
know that's outside the tradition to say
such but even if it was i think it's
clear to most readers at the flood story
whatever agustin might have thought
about its history city we'd be
hard-pressed to find modern readers
wanting to make that claim so that one
has to ask for what's it doing there and
I don't think the story I mean the way I
put it you have to die I often get this
from philosophers you have to have a
sense of genre if you're watching the
Lord of the Rings and they're attacking
the fortress of sovereign you're just
thinking you know destroy them because
you're thinking this is good versus evil
I mean there probably are little babies
on the other side of the of the wall but
the genre of the novel and it's movie
movie ization isn't you know that's not
the question the writer wants you to ask
there are different genres in which
that's a completely appropriate question
I'm not denying that that's an issue but
I think different genres raise different
you know issues for our consideration
and I think the flood story is I mean
you you can disagree with me I that's
not going to offend me if you do but I
think it is raising the questions of
what we saw in the episode of Breaking
Bad is who would want to live in a world
in which there is no you know there's no
judicial force that will reign in human
wickedness and I think that's that
that's one of the themes that's going on
in Genesis 1 or 11's how is God going to
make the world it's also part of ultra
fascist and the Mesopotamian traditions
about the flood as well as how is God
going to make the world a place in which
human beings can flourish and it takes
God a while to to achieve that that's
part of the anthropomorphic speech of
Genesis 1 to 11 the other stories again
sodom and gomorrah and the like again i
think a lot of the the father's the
reason why it's in that story and i
can't remember what they say about sodom
gomorrah
pretend the Gustin is bothered by it or
gregory of nyssa wouldn't be hard to
imagine but i think again the Bible says
God does it and they don't that they
take that more literally than I would i
think these stories are in the but in
the old testament the distinction
between primary and secondary causality
is not something that exercise the
writers so when they ascribe things to
divine action that's not necessarily the
only way in which they have to be
understood but the bible does want to
say that when peoples commit evils the
whole you know nazi germany the you know
the bombing of Germany by the Allies
lots of innocents suffered and and some
of them unjustly there were war crimes
committed by the Allies to be sure but
in a war lots of innocence even if you
do everything possible not to have
innocence of her innocence will suffer
because that's simply the nature of what
war is and in if we think of these
stories or we think of this dimension of
the old testament which is dealing with
peoples and civilizations again as
walter would say i just don't think the
problem has quite the same force as it's
often presented it doesn't completely
disappear but it doesn't have quite the
same force i think you're ascribing to
it I'm Teresa Brucker I'm a freshman at
Holy Cross College across the street and
I was wondering God it talks about how
he he regrets and it seems that he
changes his mind a lot but as I
understood and this might be incorrect
uh since God is infinite I thought that
he was he remained the same since he's
outside of time so how do you address
how that is written and put forth as
though God does change that's related to
the mystery of intercessory prayer I
mean why does he want me to pray for my
aunt Myrtle there's I mean according to
your logic I shouldn't you know
guy Crouchback I should just sign the
guestbook and let God take care of the
universe intercessory prayer is an
incredible
thank God want some how in God's own
being he wants us to ask and when he
when we ask he will quote change his
mind that is I mean what I tried to give
them an example again you don't have to
accept it but the story of the Bible the
Bible is speaking in the language of
human experience it has no other way to
frame it than to describe it this way it
is that who God is in say well you know
what we'd have to ask Thomas Aquinas if
that's how God is in say perhaps we want
to say no but in terms of the way in
which the narrative logic of the story
is going to flow the way in which we're
going to explain as limited finite human
beings how it can be that I can pray for
somebody God will hear it and then my
prayer will be answered one says well
what what if I didn't pray again these
are in mean their insoluble problems but
the Bible takes the risk of making it
would rather say God changed his mind or
to Abraham now I know that you fear God
what didn't God not know before know
that God knows now the Bible wants to
inscribe in the reader the importance of
Abraham's decision there's something
about human freedom that you know is
simply miraculous impossible to get
one's head around and the Bible is going
to take the risk of making you know God
a character not to erase that dimension
of human experience
okay my name is Kenny or lacus I'm
graduate philosophy major
rusty of st. Thomas in Minnesota you may
have just answered my question regarding
intercessory prayer who said that
it's our prayer I ever worried that this
might the potential phone connection I'm
hearing every other word okay is this
better yes okay my question earlier in
your lecture you said that God needs our
prayer uh-huh how does this not impinge
on God's omnipotence how does it not
impinge on what
omnipotence I have no idea good answer
what what do you want to say that God
then doesn't doesn't need our prayers I
mean that's your choice it's it's like
Mary and all the Angels what if she says
no well just because she's not gonna say
no she's the Blessed Mother
just to be she could but she didn't oh
there we go but the problem is that you
have to come if you're going to make it
a free decision you have to entertain
the idea the other possibility so what
when if we want to extol Mary for her
free choice then we have to reckon with
the possibility that she could have said
no so what does God put the whole
universe at risk well there's no
answering that question okay I think we
have time for one more question Jim you
want to donor Louisiana State University
I've been trying to think of a Cajun
joke which would be what he just would
have asked another girl but
but but the serious question are you
distinguishing between God's justice and
God's mercy so to go back to the
question is the god of the Old Testament
evil would it be two different questions
as the evil because unjust or evil
because unmerciful and it seems to me
that the intercessions of Abraham and
Moses are different on this score that
Abraham interceding is interceding for
the righteous man right and therefore is
calling into questions God's justice
whereas Moses isn't justifying what was
done in his absence and worshiping the
Gordon the golden calf but presumably is
pleading for God's mercy the difference
in my view between Abraham and Moses but
it's like going to a customer service
desk at Walmart and let's imagine you've
got a product you bought at Walmart that
failed but you don't have the receipt so
you have no legal hold on Walmart to
give you your money back so if that's
your situation when you walk into the
store with your toaster and you've lost
the receipt you meet the lady behind or
the man don't want to be sexist behind
the customer service desk and you're
going to be very polite you're going to
say you know well this is a great
company I know you want to stand by your
product wah blah blah and you know maybe
nine times out of ten you're gonna get
what you wish Moses has got the receipt
you know Moses God said that you know he
promised Abraham blah blah blah and
Moses can stand up there and you know he
says remember look it's written right
here and he can be much more direct and
demanding at least to me that's the
difference between the two stood the two
stories he is asking about the righteous
but I think the important element this
frequently forgotten by individuals I
don't read to the end of the story is
the element I mentioned is that as
Abraham is Abraham runs to look down at
Sodom Gomorrah when
smoke is rising not simply because he's
interested in a moral problem though he
is and that's what God wants to teach
and that's what God says at the
beginning of 18 but he's also concerned
about his family members right and
that's why the story ends God remembered
what did he remember he knew what
Abraham was really asking about and he
delivered that family at least for me
that's a key element that's come it's
frequently forgotten there and they
didn't rise to the number of ten but
they were individuals who run or
righteous that God you know wasn't going
to be unjust and to destroy that's how I
read it in any event please join me in
thanking professor Anderson once again
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
and friends as always we can continue
our conversation outside in the atrium
with some refreshments and wonderful
kickoff to the beginning thank you very
yeah
