God's Problem by Bart Ehrman

[TolkienFan]

Who has read this book and what are your thoughts on it?

[guacamole]

The book is a potentially useful introduction to anyone interested in studying the Biblical textual responses to the so-called “Problem of Pain”. The text is not scholarly per se—I mean, there is no doubt that the writer is a scholar, but his audience isn’t primarily academic-- this is a laymen’s text. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this text’s primary utility is for readers uninitiated in Biblical text to use as a starting point for further reading. His stated goal is to analyze Biblical texts’ proposed “solutions” and determine the strength of their responses.

The text is roughly organized this way (these are not necessarily chapters):


the basic problem (and his de-conversion narrative)
Biblical approaches to suffering (not his order)
suffering because of sin generally
suffering because of one’s own sin
suffering because of one’s own righteousness
redemptive suffering
apocalyptic answers to the problem of suffering
final thoughts
In sections A-E above, he treats each of the major Biblical genres and provides sample citations from the text. His citations were actually a minor stumbling point for me, and might be so for anyone already well-versed in the text. I found myself already understanding his point and the text presented as evidence even before he provided the citation. I am probably a bit more impatient than the average reader so I skipped most of the citations, with which I was already familiar. As this is a popular text, he drops some of the conventions of citation that you might expect—there are no verse numbers, for example. This choice is slightly problematic because if a neophyte wanted to look up Ehrman’s citation and that beginner were using a different translation or paraphrase, then he might have difficulty following his own text next to Ehrman’s, especially if they are trying to read the citation in the larger source context.

Another very slight problem I have with the text is the scholarly pedantry seeping into the text. For example, when he treats Job, he cannot resist dividing the text into two parts written by different writers with different explanations and we learn this through textual criticism and the narrative form breaks into a dialogue and… Whatever. It’s sufficient to note, if one is writing a text for a beginner, that Job addresses suffering two ways, regardless of how many writers there are. This is a point of clarity and excess verbiage. It’s primary to the text to understand the citations’ approach to suffering. It’s not primary to determine if we can distinguish who wrote what when and where. It’s simply irrelevant. The obvious subtext then, is that he has to engage in a certain amount of textual politics or academic shorthand to let readers know exactly where he stands. However, he’s obviously not doing this for the book’s intended audience who could probably not care less about textual criticism. I found it slightly irritating that I had to bother reading his nods to certain schools of criticism. A good editor should have cut that section, and the mess on first-second-third-Isaiah, right out. If you are a beginner with the text and these sections are confusing, ignore them. I hope they are rewritten in subsequent editions.

Since he is trying to treat with Biblical answers, he mostly ignores extra-Biblical responses. This is not a dense philosophical and logical treatment of the problem, but he does not mean it to be so. I am not criticizing his approach here. I am simply pointing out that if you are looking for a bit more of a heavy text, then you might pass this one by. That said, if you are the sort of skeptic who doesn’t have a de-conversion story, or are a non-Christian for whom the Biblical text is esoteric and difficult, then you will probably learn much new information.

My Main Critiques

I say he mostly ignores extra-Biblical responses because at several points in the book he criticizes a rational and logical approach to the problem as insufficient to those who are suffering. I have no doubt this is the case, however it bears pointing out that the whole “problem of suffering” is a logical construction, the logical parsing of which, pro or con, is going to be insufficient to those who are suffering. This constitutes a misguided attempt to justify their exclusion from an otherwise admiringly limited and tightly conceived text. It would have been sufficient to say that logical constructions are exterior to the text’s thesis and let it go at that. Instead he constructs what I think is a fatal logical contradiction. If you write off logic and reason as methods, then there is actually no problem. It seems to be a bit of special pleading on his part to disqualify a class of answers as useful when those answers use the exact same method that generates the problem in the first place. This becomes a bigger problem when you acknowledge that, in fact, there is no “problem of suffering” in the Bible—not in the sense of Epicurus’ Paradox, or something similar. If that is the case, then Ehrman’s approach, indeed the approach of everyone who deals with the problem of pain and scripture, is to foist an exterior issue on the text. If we cannot use logic, per Ehrman, as a problem solving method, then the book is ultimately senseless because there is no actual problem except as constructed by the skeptic’s logic. The best thing to do in this case is to ignore his protestations as a mistake. At worst then, the book is a meaningless contradiction and at best, it is a specific question going to the Bible in search of an answer that the Bible was not constructed to address.

Final

The book is a valid evaluation of the Biblical texts on suffering. It suffers from a bit of wandering focus and has a fatal logical flaw in the text. Ehrman is a skeptic and so the treatment of the text, while professionally reverent, is ultimately that of the skeptic. I disagree with his conclusions, mostly because I allow myself tools that he attempts to disallow.

Rating:

Beginner with no experience: buy it, ignore the condemnation of reason and historical-critical subtext. It is a useful starting point. If you want to read the text in context, try to match up translations to his for ease of use.
Average student of scripture and philosophy: borrow it, before you add it to your library.
Advanced student of scripture: borrow it in order to brush up on a skeptic’s critique of Bibical themes.
Advance student of philosophy or reason: unless you need to brush up on Biblical texts, skip it, nothing new is added to the discussion that hasn’t been said before and better.

Fwiw
Guaca.

[Pilgrim]

I have a blog entry on it if you care to check out my tweb blog. We read the book at a church reading group last year.

[guacamole]

El linko?

[TolkienFan]

Guac, you took the words right out of my mouth. Just a couple additions for me:


Originally posted by guacamole

In sections A-E above, he treats each of the major Biblical genres and provides sample citations from the text. His citations were actually a minor stumbling point for me, and might be so for anyone already well-versed in the text. I found myself already understanding his point and the text presented as evidence even before he provided the citation. I am probably a bit more impatient than the average reader so I skipped most of the citations, with which I was already familiar.

Which is exactly why I skipped over so much of his book and have never completely finished it. Of course, the fact that he often seems rather repetitive helped that too.


I say he mostly ignores extra-Biblical responses because at several points in the book he criticizes a rational and logical approach to the problem as insufficient to those who are suffering. I have no doubt this is the case, however it bears pointing out that the whole “problem of suffering” is a logical construction, the logical parsing of which, pro or con, is going to be insufficient to those who are suffering. This constitutes a misguided attempt to justify their exclusion from an otherwise admiringly limited and tightly conceived text. It would have been sufficient to say that logical constructions are exterior to the text’s thesis and let it go at that. Instead he constructs what I think is a fatal logical contradiction. If you write off logic and reason as methods, then there is actually no problem. It seems to be a bit of special pleading on his part to disqualify a class of answers as useful when those answers use the exact same method that generates the problem in the first place. This becomes a bigger problem when you acknowledge that, in fact, there is no “problem of suffering” in the Bible—not in the sense of Epicurus’ Paradox, or something similar. If that is the case, then Ehrman’s approach, indeed the approach of everyone who deals with the problem of pain and scripture, is to foist an exterior issue on the text. If we cannot use logic, per Ehrman, as a problem solving method, then the book is ultimately senseless because there is no actual problem except as constructed by the skeptic’s logic. The best thing to do in this case is to ignore his protestations as a mistake. At worst then, the book is a meaningless contradiction and at best, it is a specific question going to the Bible in search of an answer that the Bible was not constructed to address.

Amen to that. The Problem of Evil isn't a logical problem, it's an emotional one. After countless theodicies and defenses have been offered for all these years to show that evil is in no way logically incompatible with the existence of God, Ehrman is trying to shift the goalposts by saying these answers are not emotionally satisfying. No logical construct made to rebut the logical formulation of the Problem of Evil is going to be emotionally satisfying to the one who is suffering or the one who asks why there is suffering. The reason is why is simply because they weren't made to be. It's just wrong to expect a logical solution to solve an emotional problem just as it is wrong to expect an emotional solution to solve a logical problem. It would be like swallowing ointment for nausea and rubbing Pepto Bismol on your burns in hopes to heal them.

I would also add a couple other critiques.

First, Ehrman treats the views of suffering presented in the Bible as a way of explaining all suffering and are thus mutually exclusive. Of course, as far as I can tell, there is no indication that these are supposed to cover all forms of suffering as opposed to specific incidents in specific contexts in which they are applied. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me right now (it's currently 300 miles away) so I can't be very specific here.

Second, at least once (maybe twice) in the first chapter, Ehrman says that the did not write this book to persuade people of anything. In the same chapter as where he says that the theodicies and defenses he has read are unconvincing and often morally abhorrent (I believe that was the phrase he used to refer to logical solutions that don't solve emotional problems) and where he uses a great deal of emotionally charged language, he now says he's not trying to persuade anyone about anything. Also, in light of things he says in the later chapters and the conclusion, I would have to wonder that if his purpose wasn't to persuade, why exactly did he write? Someone who is simply trying to be informative wouldn't do as he did. But once again, I don't have the book with me now, so I can't get very specific here.

I would also agree with your ratings of the book.

[guacamole]

Amen to that. The Problem of Evil isn't a logical problem, it's an emotional one. After countless theodicies and defenses have been offered for all these years to show that evil is in no way logically incompatible with the existence of God, Ehrman is trying to shift the goalposts by saying these answers are not emotionally satisfying. No logical construct made to rebut the logical formulation of the Problem of Evil is going to be emotionally satisfying to the one who is suffering or the one who asks why there is suffering. The reason is why is simply because they weren't made to be. It's just wrong to expect a logical solution to solve an emotional problem just as it is wrong to expect an emotional solution to solve a logical problem. It would be like swallowing ointment for nausea and rubbing Pepto Bismol on your burns in hopes to heal them.
[QUOTe]

I agree with you 100%. The problems of evil and suffering are emotional appeals dressed up in logical syntax. After all these years the skeptics are still trotting out the dusty reliquaries of Epicurus (not to mention the errors and distortions of Voltaire-- OH MY GOODNESS! Candide is just about the worst treatment of a philosophical topic I've ever read), after the advances of thinkers like Liebniz, et. al.

[QUOTE]
I would also add a couple other critiques.

First, Ehrman treats the views of suffering presented in the Bible as a way of explaining all suffering and are thus mutually exclusive. Of course, as far as I can tell, there is no indication that these are supposed to cover all forms of suffering as opposed to specific incidents in specific contexts in which they are applied. Unfortunately, I don't have the book with me right now (it's currently 300 miles away) so I can't be very specific here.


You are right again. There's sufficient reason to view the disparate points of view as complementary and absolutely ~no~ reason to think the authors of the texts thought their views on suffering were exclusive. I also thought that was such a glaring error that I had misread the text as I was skimming past his citations and exposition. I'm sorry to note then, considering that you picked up on it as well, that it is another serious flaw in the text.



Second, at least once (maybe twice) in the first chapter, Ehrman says that the did not write this book to persuade people of anything. In the same chapter as where he says that the theodicies and defenses he has read are unconvincing and often morally abhorrent (I believe that was the phrase he used to refer to logical solutions that don't solve emotional problems) and where he uses a great deal of emotionally charged language, he now says he's not trying to persuade anyone about anything. Also, in light of things he says in the later chapters and the conclusion, I would have to wonder that if his purpose wasn't to persuade, why exactly did he write? Someone who is simply trying to be informative wouldn't do as he did. But once again, I don't have the book with me now, so I can't get very specific here.


Perhaps to entertain? Er... nevermind.



I would also agree with your ratings of the book.


Cheers,
guaca.