Views: 1
AUDIO:
What it is:
Asking oneself about the meaning of life is an experience that belongs to everyone;¹ it is a thought specific to human beings, barring proof to the contrary.² Believers and non-believers alike, we understand beautiful feelings such as “E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle”³ or tragic thoughts such as “E’ funesto a chi nasce il dì natale.”⁴,⁵
Here, then, is the question that a biblical scholar and a philosopher take up: the meaning of human life as tested by evil. And “Male” [Evil] is the title of the small book that collects their contributions on the theme.
The two authors are not in direct dialogue with one another — they do not speak within a single text — but rather in two brief essays, prolusions, each argued according to the tools of their own trade.
Here we summarize the reflection of the biblical scholar Mazzinghi; in a later post we will discuss the other contribution. In both cases we place ourselves in what might be called a third position: ignorant of theology and philosophy, we proceed by comparison.
Mazzinghi, a biblical scholar, historically enumerates the eight answers given to the question “…how is it possible that the divinities, a good God, permit suffering, pain, death?”⁶
Answers that also apply to two further questions:
- why does God allow the innocent and the good beyond any doubt — children — to suffer;
- why does God allow the wicked, the torturer, the malevolent being, to suffer nothing, to grow up healthy, rich, arrogant, untouched by any pain?
The question is posed by Job, the persevering believer.⁷ The blameless one, the innocent man who sees his wealth vanish, his seven children die, his wife mock him. Alone, ill, atrociously suffering, guiltless, he asks it of God.
What works and what doesn’t
Historically, and prior to the Book of Job, five answers had been given: first, if you suffer it is through your prayer that God ‘will intervene to save you and do justice’; second, ‘the gods [are] the true ones responsible… for evil’; third, ‘…there is no true justice… the only possible solution [to evil] is suicide’; fourth, ‘…faced with the prospect of evil… it is worth enjoying life…’; fifth, ‘…one choice is as good as another and evil strikes… without any logic’⁸
The biblical scholar says that Job’s interlocutors give answers that recall the first answer, and — frankly — it is hard to see how it could be otherwise, given that the choice is among the remaining ones: false and evil gods, incitement to suicide, to enjoyment without reason, to the arbitrariness of evil.
Those gathered around Job’s suffering say: prayer is the means of salvation for those who have sinned. In other words, they accuse the poor sufferer. They say: ‘…[since] the wicked is always punished by God, [it follows that] the cause… is the human being’s sin…’: punishment presupposes guilt.’⁹ It is an idea of suffering as retribution for the guilt of having sinned. So if Job suffers it is because he has sinned — there is no other explanation. Certainty of punishment, we might say in modern language: if you sin, you will suffer. Sin is presupposed by the presence of punishment, regardless of whether you are aware of having sinned.
Mazzinghi consequently observes that, in this perspective, the answer implies faith as a kind of safe-conduct — it would function, that is, as ‘…an insurance policy against misfortunes…’¹⁰ nothing more elevated than that.
The second answer given by Job’s friends — the sixth in historical order — instead shifts attention to the meaning of evil, of suffering. Suffering has a purpose: ‘…God frees the poor through affliction.’¹¹ The aim of the evil suffered is pedagogical; it is a lesser suffering than what would await us if we did not receive a warning — it serves as notice of the danger we run. Suffering, then, is an alarm bell, a warning of a point of no return.
The seventh and eighth answers annul the previous ones and bring the question to a close.
The seventh answer is given by God (read: the author of the Book of Job) inasmuch as He reveals Himself to Job¹², ‘God… cares for life in all its aspects, even those that seem to us useless or even harmful.’¹³ The human claim to place oneself at the center of nature is arbitrary. It is an extraordinary answer: man is one among many, and not even first among the many, if not indeed among equals. Like an ostrich, a fish, [a virus?], the human being has no particular pre-eminence. There is no reason for it — simply none.
Then, the eighth, consequent answer, says the biblical scholar, is that ‘God brings to light how the human claim to judge by one’s own criteria does not hold up.’¹⁴
Therefore God cannot be judged from a human point of view, but at most from one who holds a universal and a-temporal point of view. A hypothesis that is out of the question, since God is one.¹⁵
In any case, it is a point of view to which man cannot gain access, given his own evident intrinsic limits: he has no eyes to comprehend the complexity of creation, he does not live an eternal life, and above all he possesses no generative or regulating power whatsoever.¹⁶
How can an omnipotent God be reconciled with evil, if not by conjecturing that God renounces His own omnipotence? He suspends Himself, so to speak, in order to allow man to choose in freedom.¹⁷
“I therefore propose the idea of a God who, for a given epoch — the epoch of the cosmic process — has abdicated all power to intervene in the physical course of the world… By granting man freedom, God has renounced His power”¹⁸
Marchionni, S., (a cura di), Mazzinghi, L., Di Maio A., (2025) Male. con “Introduzione” di Piccolo, G.. EDB, Bologna. cod. ISBN 9788810981535, pp. 138. €13,00
Note:
- Mancuso, Vito. (25-04-2026) “Se l’invenzione di Dio è un enigma da risolvere”… La Stampa. https://www.lastampa.it/cultura/2026/04/25/news/mancuso_dio_religione_mistero_dante_kant-15598014/?ref=LSHA-P2-S2-T1 ↩︎
- In questo post le note hanno particolare importanza ↩︎
- Dante, A., Inferno XXXIV, 139 ↩︎
- Leopardi, G., XXIII – CANTO NOTTURNO DI UN PASTORE ERRANTE DELL’ASIA. [testo integrale del componimento lasciato in italiano] [fonte: giocomoleopardi.it] (download 15.02.26) ↩︎
- “Allora Giobbe aprì la bocca e maledisse il giorno della sua nascita…” Giobbe 3:1-4 ↩︎
- Piccolo, G. (2025), “Introduzione” in Marchionni, S., (a cura di), Mazzinghi, L., Di Maio A., (2025). Male. con “Introduzione” di Piccolo, G. EDB, Bologna. p.7 ↩︎
- Il Libro di Giobbe è uno dei testi biblici più interessanti… Card. Ravasi, G., https://youtu.be/hgZwHu8Sb3g?si=s3AbserafXDQMR5S (download 16.02.26) ↩︎
- Mazzinghi, L. (2025), “Il libro di Giobbe e il problema del male”, in Marchionni, S., (a cura di), Mazzinghi, L., Di Maio A., (2025). Male., op. cit., p. 27-28 ↩︎
- ivi p. 29 ↩︎
- ivi, p. 32 ↩︎
- ivi. p33 ↩︎
- ivi p. 43 ↩︎
- ivi, p. 44 ↩︎
- ivi p. 46, corsivo ns. ↩︎
- Jonas, H. (2004). Il concetto di Dio dopo Auschwitz. Una voce ebraica. Trad. di Maurizio Vento. Il Melangolo. Genova. p. 18 ↩︎
- Jung, C. G., (1992). Risposta a Giobbe, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino. p.59. [citazione lasciata in italiano] ↩︎
- sul punto, a conferma, mi pare, Vattimo, G. (2012), Della realtà: fini della filosofia. Milano: Garzanti. p. 194 punto 4) [citazione lasciata in italiano] — V. anche il mio post “Sotto la guerra 06 Deumanizzare” nota 10 in particolare ↩︎
- Jonas, H. (2004). Il concetto di Dio dopo Auschwitz. op. cit., p. 17. In un senso affine, e con linguaggio divertito, anche Murgia, M., (2026), Lezioni sull’odio, Einaudi, Trino p. 31 ↩︎
Translated by Claude (Anthropic) under editorial supervision. The Italian text remains the authoritative version of reference.
– Last Updated on 02.10.26 by wv
