Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What’s So Funny About Arguing with God? A Case for Playful Argumentation from Jewish Literature

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we show that God is portrayed in the Hebrew Bible and in the Rabbinic literature—some of the very Hebrew texts that have influenced the three major world religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—as One who can be argued with and even changes his mind. Contrary to fundamentalist positions, in the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish texts God is omniscient but enjoys good, playful argumentation, broadening the possibilities for reasoning and reasonability. Arguing with God has also had a profound influence upon Jewish humor, demonstrating that humans can joke with God. More specifically, we find in Jewish literature that humor’s capacity to bisociate between different domains of human experience can share a symbiotic relationship with argumentation’s emphasis on producing multiple, contested perspectives. Overall, once mortals realize that figures such as God can accept many perspectives through humor, teasing, arguing, criticism, and in at least one case, even lawsuits, a critical point emerges: citizens should learn to live, laugh, and reason with others with whom they disagree.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although there are not many studies of argumentation in Judaic religious texts, Jacobs also focused on the use of the kal va-chomer (a fortiori argument, i.e., “all the more so”) and its use in the Hebrew Bible. The kal va-chomer is one of the thirteen principles of logic used in rabbinic exegesis and in Jewish law. According to the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 92:7), this type of logical argumentation is used ten times in the Hebrew Bible.

  2. While not considering the specific mechanisms by which humor and argument can interact, philosopher Ted Cohen also speculates that Jewish historical emphases upon critical reasoning and logic likely share a relationship with Jewish jokes (65). Cohen states that: “A person in this tradition does not only learn and memorize the conclusions reached, although he [sic] must do some of that. Rather, he joins this study: he argues, debates, contests, criticizes, and learns; and he does not stop” (66)—a point aligning with our analysis.

  3. We follow Berger’s (The Heretical) definition of “fundamentalism.” In a world in which “choice” among many available options is a defining feature of faith communities, Berger outlines three modern approaches to religion, one of which is “deductive” fundamentalist approaches that simply affirm inviolable traditions or tenets in ways that are impervious to incoming information or further reasoning.

  4. An unpublished working paper upon which this essay is based can be found at Friedman and Friedman.

  5. Please note that translations of the Hebrew Bible and other religious texts in this analysis are the authors’ own.

  6. The Talmud also describes a situation in which God admitted that He made a “mistake.” In response to Moses’ inquiry into God’s name, the text explains the meaning of God’s reply in Exodus as “I Will Be What I Will Be” (Exodus 3:14). (Note: most translators translate this name as “I Am Who I Am,” even although, grammatically, the words that make up the name are in the future tense—Ehyeh means “I will be”). God instructed Moses to tell the Israelites, “I shall be with them in this servitude just as I will be with them in other servitudes.” Moses hence told God: “They have enough troubles now; you do not have to tell them about future troubles.” God agreed with Moses’ argument and subsequently instructed him to tell the Israelites (Exodus 3:14): “I Will Be has sent me” (Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 9b).

  7. Maimonides, who wrote the encyclopedic compilation of Talmudic law, can also be found disagreeing with God (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Leprosy 2:9).

  8. For an extended treatment of this topic, see Kidder.

References

  • Appiah, Kwame A. 2007. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asen, Robert. 2004. A discourse theory of citizenship. Quarterly Journal of Speech 90.2: 189–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asen, Robert. 2009. Ideology, materiality, and counterpublicity: William E. Simon and the rise of a conservative counterintelligentsia. Quarterly Journal of Speech 95.3: 263–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleichem, Sholom. 1956. Tevye wins a fortune. Selected stories of Sholom Aleichem. New York: The Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avner, Ziv. 2007. Humor. In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 9, 2nd ed, ed. Michael Berenbaum, and Fred Skolnik, 590–599. Detroit: Macmillan Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barash, David P., and Charles P. Webel. 2009. Peace and conflict studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Arthur A. 2011. The art of comedy writing. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Peter L. 1979. The heretical imperative: Contemporary possibilities of religious affirmation. Garden City: Anchor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Peter L. 1997. Redeeming laughter: The comic dimension of human experience. New York: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bergson, Henri. 1956. Laughter: An essay on the meaning of comic (trans: Cloudesley Brereton & Fred Rothwell). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Booth, Wayne C. 1974. Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Laura W. 2009. Listening to the city: Difference, identity, and storytelling in online deliberative groups. Journal of Public Deliberation 5.1: 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, Athalya, and Yehuda T. Radday. 1990. Between intentionality and reception: Acknowledgement and application (A preview). In On humour and the comic in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Yehuda T. Radday, and Athalya Brenner, 13–19. Sheffield: Almond Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buber, Martin. 1975. Tales of the Hasidim: The early masters. New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Kenneth. 1984. Attitudes toward history. California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, Alex. 1997. Taking the risk out of democracy. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chajes, Zevi H. 2005. The student’s guide through the Talmud (trans: Jacob Schachter). New York: Yashar Books.

  • Cohen, Ted. 1999. Jokes: Philosophical thoughts on joking matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Maeve. 2000. Five arguments for deliberative democracy. Political Studies 48.5: 948–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combs, Steven C. 2004. The useless-/usefulness of argumentation: The Dao of disputation. Argumentation and Advocacy 41.2: 58–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crick, Nathan. 2005. "A capital and novel argument": Charles Darwin’s notebook and the productivity of rhetorical consciousness. Quarterly Journal of Speech 91.4: 337–364.

  • Dreyfus, Georges B. 2008. What is debate for? The rationality of Tibetan debates and the role of humor. Argumentation 22.1: 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, David A. 2004. Arguing with god, Talmudic discourse, and the Jewish countermodel: Implications for the study of argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 41.2: 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freelon, Deen G. 2010. Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society 12.7: 1172–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Hershey H. 2000. Humor in the Hebrew Bible. Humor 13.3: 257–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, Hershey H. and Linda Weiser Friedman. 2012. Humor and the omniscient god.

  • Good, Edwin M. 1965. Irony in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnight, G.Thomas. 2007. The engagements of communication: Jürgen Habermas on discourse, critical reason, and controversy. In Perspectives on philosophy of communication, ed. Pat Arneson, 91–110. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2000. Three faces of the future. Argumentation and Advocacy 37.2: 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jurgen. 1985. The theory of communicative action, vol. 1 (trans: Thomas McCarthy). Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Heller, Agnes. 2005. Immortal comedy: The comic phenomenon in art, literature, and life. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, Darrin. 2002. The promise(s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5.2: 223–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyers, M.Conrad. 1969. The dialectic of the sacred and the comic. In Holy laughter, ed. M. Conrad Hyers. New York: Seabury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivie, Robert L. 2002. Rhetorical deliberation and democratic politics in the here and now. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5.2: 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Louis. 1972. The ‘Qal Va-Homer’ argument in the Old Testament. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 35.2: 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. 2012. Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, Keith. 1979. Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, Albert R., and Stephen Toulmin. 1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerferd, George Briscoe. 1981. The sophistic movement. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, Rushworth M. 2009. How good people make tough choices: Resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler, Arthur. 1964. The act of creation. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laytner, Anson. 1990. Arguing with god: A Jewish tradition. New Jersey: Jason Aronson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, Seymour, and Earl Raab. 1978. The politics of unreason: Right-wing extremism in America, 1790-1977. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Yongmei. 1999. Justifying my position in your terms: Cross-cultural argumentation in a globalized world. Argumentation 13.3: 297–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockyer, Sharon, and Michael Pickering (Eds.). 2005. Beyond a joke: The limits of humour. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luban, David. 2004. The coiled serpent of argument: Reason, authority, and law in a Talmudic tale. Chicago-Kent Law Review 79: 1253–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lull, James. 2007. Culture-on-demand: Communication in a crisis world. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, Arnie J. 1993. The comic frame as a corrective to bureaucratization: A dramatistic perspective on argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 29.4: 164–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallow, Jeffrey. 2008. Our pal God and other presumptions: A book of Jewish humor. Lincoln: iUniverse Star.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGhee, Paul Edward. 2010. Humor as survival training for a stressed-out world: The 7 humor habits program. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Gordon. 2010. Switch-side debating meets demand-driven rhetoric of science. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 13.1: 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morreall, John. 2009. Comic relief: A comprehensive philosophy of humor. Massachusetts: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, William, and Moshe Waldoks. 1981. The big book of Jewish humor. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13.3: 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, Stephen D. 1996. The problem of evil revisited: Theodicy argument as forensic rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric 29.2: 122–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palczewski, Catherine H. 2002. Argument in an off key: Playing with the productive limits of argument. In Arguing communication and culture, ed. G. Thomas Goodnight, 1–23. Washington: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, W. Barnett, and Kim A. Pearce. 2000. Combining passions and abilities: Toward dialogic virtuosity. Southern Journal of Communication 65.2–3: 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peifer, Jason T., and R. Lance Holbert. 2013. Developing a systematic assessment of humor in the context of 2012 U.S. General Election debates. Argumentation and Advocacy 49.4: 286–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (trans: John W. Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Platt, Carrie Anne, and Zoltan P. Majdik. 2012. The place of religion in Habermas’s transformed public sphere. Argumentation & Advocacy 49.2: 138–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, Neil. 1976. Crazy talk, stupid talk: How we defeat ourselves by the way we talk and what to do about it. New York: Delacorte Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radday, Yehuda T. 1990. On missing the humour in the Bible: An introduction. In On humour and the comic in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Yehuda T. Radday, and Athalya Brenner, 21–38. Sheffield: Almond Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhea, David M. 2012. There they go again: The use of humor in presidential debates 1960–2008. Argumentation and Advocacy 49.2: 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, Edward. 1991. Protagoras and logos: A study in Greek philosophy and rhetoric. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, Carolyn J. 2009. Irony and meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Chris, and Ben Voth. 2002. The role of humor in political argument: How “strategery and “lockboxes” changed a political campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy 39.2: 110–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorel, Edward. 1997. Unauthorized portraits. New York: Knopf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaulding, Henry D. (Ed.). 1969. Encyclopedia of Jewish humor: From biblical times to the modern age. New York: Jonathan David Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, David. 1986. Midrash and theory: Ancient Jewish exegesis and contemporary literary studies. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, David. 1994. Parables in Midrash: Narrative and exegesis in rabbinic literature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telushkin, Joseph. 1992. Jewish humor. New York: William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Producers. Prod. Brooksfilms. Dir. Susan Stroman. Perf. Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, and Uma Thurman. United States: Universal Pictures. 2005. Film.

  • Waisanen, Don J. 2009. A citizen’s guides to democracy inaction: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s comic rhetorical criticism. Southern Communication Journal 74.2: 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waisanen, Don J. 2013. An alternative sense of humor: The problems with crossing comedy and politics in public discourse. In Venomous speech and other problems in American political discourse, ed. Clarke Rountree, 299–315. New York: Praegar.

  • Waisanen, Don J. 2014. Toward robust public engagement: The value of deliberative discourse for civil communication. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 17.2.

  • Weisel, Elie. 1979. The trial of god. New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whedbee, J.William. 1998. The Bible and the comic vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Affairs, Baruch College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Don Waisanen

  2. Department of Finance and Business Management, School of Business, Brooklyn College, CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Hershey H. Friedman

  3. Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, The Graduate Center of CUNY, New York, NY, USA

    Linda Weiser Friedman

Authors
  1. Don Waisanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hershey H. Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda Weiser Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Don Waisanen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waisanen, D., Friedman, H.H. & Friedman, L.W. What’s So Funny About Arguing with God? A Case for Playful Argumentation from Jewish Literature. Argumentation 29, 57–80 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9316-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9316-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation