Bart Ehrman’s new book God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer, is a skeptical view at how the Bible seeks to explain suffering, based on Ehrman’s understanding of both suffering and the Bible. Ehrman begins with a very personal chapter on his struggle with the concept of suffering and how this shaped his journey towards his current spiritual location: skeptical agnosticism.
Ehrman then works through the Bible showing the different ways that different Biblical authors dealt with the problem of suffering. He devotes two chapters on, what he calls, “the classical view of suffering.” This view is taken mostly from the prophets (chapter 2) and the primary history (chapter 3). The ‘classical view’ is that sin is the cause of suffering. Ehrman shows his fundamentalist roots by oft reverting to proof texts to make his point. He then turns to a chapter on the consequences of sin, which is a bit redundant except for the section he added on the New Testament’s view of the consequences of sin.
On a side note, Ehrman is like a fish out of water when it comes to the Old Testament. This is seen not only in his very shallow and superficial understanding of the Old Testament, but also in the works that he cites in those chapters, which consists of Bible dictionaries and introductory works that are read by undergraduates in their Bible 101 courses. He would have been more convincing if he stuck to the New Testament.
This classical view of suffering does not adequately explain why suffering happens for Ehrman. If it is true that sin breads suffering, then it should be true that innocent children don’t die, the righteous do not suffer, and all the evil people in the world would be suffering. But that is not consistent with reality.
The next view that is taken up is the “mystery of the greater good” view or, how it is better known, “redemptive suffering.” This view is displayed best in the story of Joseph. Joseph suffered many injustices for a long period of his life, but “what men meant for evil, God meant for good.” Therefore, the suffering was justified according to the Bible. This view, as well, does not explain suffering for Ehrman because, in reality, not all suffering has a silver lining. Some suffering happens without an ounce of good coming from it. Therefore, this view, for Ehrman, is found wanting.
Ehrman then takes up a view of suffering found in Ecclesiastes (which he pairs with Job, a fact the reveals how little he has actually studied either book), namely: suffering does not make sense. Suffering is not something that comes from God; it is just something that happens and we can’t explain it. Ehrman resonates with this view and agrees with it. Unfortunately, this is not completely the point of Ecclesiastes or Job. But lets not let facts get in the way.
The final view that Ehrman takes up is that found in the apocalyptic sections of Jewish and Christian literature. The point in these books is that God is the one who has the final word. Although things may be bad now and we might not see vindication during our lifetimes, God will settle the score in the end. This view (surprise, surprise) does not bode well in Ehrman’s view. In his view, this idea is based on an ancient world view that was constructed to bring hope to those who are oppressed and only can be believed if you believe that God is actually in control of the world and all the activities going on in the world.
The final chapter displays Ehrman’s ultimate failure. He attempts to summarize his arguments, slam dunk the Bible as useless when it comes to explaining suffering, and then offer his way of viewing suffering. He fails miserably, to say the least, for no less than three reasons:
1) He does not interact with the many Christian apologists who have been writing about theodicy for centuries. Those who he does interact with, he only does so in passing. I know that I am more than a little bit biased, but if you were to read Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God on the heals of Ehrman’s book, you would see just how little Ehrman has interacted with Christian explanations and studies on suffering. Also, Os Guiness’s book Unspeakable also shows just how little Ehrman truly understands about Christian views of suffering.
2) Getting rid of the Bible or God does not rid of having to explain suffering. For the sake of argument, if you say that God does not exist and the Bible is completely wrong, you still have to explain why there is suffering. Only now you have to do it without a good God who is in control of all things and will work all things for good for those who love him. I don’t understand how this wouldn’t leave you completely depressed. If I didn’t believe in God or the Bible I would be sitting in my room listening to emo, painting my nails black, and writing dark poetry about the evils of consumerism and bright colors. A world without God makes absolutely no sense to me. In the words of Cornelius Van Til: “I feel that the whole of history and civilisation would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything.”
3) Ehrman gives no coherent solution about how to deal with suffering. He ultimately concludes that suffering is meaningless. This is how he ends his book:
What we have in the here and now is all that there is. We need to live life to its fullest and help others to enjoy the fruits of the land. In the end, we may not have ultimate solutions to life’s problems. We may not know the why’s and wherefore’s. But just because we don’t have an answer to suffering does not mean that we cannot have a response to it. Our response should be to work to alleviate suffering wherever possible and to live life as well as we can (278).
Great solution, Bart. How did you get there? How do you justify your conclusions? Why should we live life like you are saying? Don’t bother asking, because Ehrman never answers these questions.
The problem that Ehrman pins on God ultimately falls in Ehrman’s own lap. Unlike the Almighty, Ehrman is not in possession of all wisdom, knowledge, and grace so he is not able to answer the problem or even put forth a coherent possible solution. While he may not agree with Scripture, Ehrman still has to account for why he chooses to live his life the way he does when it comes to his understanding of suffering. The logic does not go: A) The Bible is wrong, therefore B) I am right. Even if he believes that Scripture does not answer the problem of suffering, he does everyone, including himself, a disservice by not showing why he believes his alternative is valid. Instead, he simply says that you cannot make sense of suffering, therefore carpe diem. Not only are his reasons for not believing Scripture unconvincing, but so is his alternative “solution.”
20 March 2008 at 5.07 pm
Nice review and way to “take the roof off” of his arguments.
I would really like to hear some of Ehrman’s responses to God’s questions starting in Job 38. I assume it would be like a deer in headlights because that is about his total response to suffering.
Wes
20 March 2008 at 7.21 pm
“What we have in the here and now is all that there is.” And he really knows this for sure?
Thanks Art, and thanks for clarifying Keller as a presupp. apologist,btw.
20 March 2008 at 10.05 pm
thanks for this post, I have been waiting for one on this since I heard him on Radio Times. Like Keller referenced, it was so odd to hear his story, realize how similar it was to mine, and yet, we had two very different conclusions about the nature of God and suffering. Hearing his viewpoint does open a window for me though into how many of my friends feel about God and suffering. Of all my doubts… suffering is the hardest for me. The more life I experience, and the more cases i have on my caseload (social work) the more I am challenged in this area. It is just hard.
21 March 2008 at 5.08 pm
Greetings Aboulet,
I appreciate your thoughts, on this and other posts. Bart Ehrman is certainly a well trained scholar (under Bruce Metzger) but he shows that he has a significant axe to grind in this work as well as his work on textual criticism (Misquoting Jesus).
21 March 2008 at 6.56 pm
benjmjohnson: Thanks for your comment. I actually did a chapter-by-chapter review of Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. You might find it helpful if you are reading/planning to read the book.
25 April 2008 at 10.56 am
[...] and forth conversation between N.T. Wright and Bart Ehrman centered around Ehrman’s new book (which I reviewed here) and the problem of [...]
5 September 2008 at 2.48 am
He didn’t name the book “My Solution to God’s problem”. It is no disservice that he points out the problem and does not offer a solution. He never claims to have a solution to the world’s suffering. Instead he offers the make-the-best-of-it insights of Ecclesiastes as you quoted.
8 October 2008 at 11.00 pm
Hello–I read your review. You come off as one of those christian snobs who is on the one hand personally frightened by objectivity and on the other, sneers at anyone elses pursuit of it.
Christian apologists don’t suffer for any of us or make any of our sufferings any less. As their name implies, apologists are defensive, not objective.They have been characterized as being deceptive, or “whitewashing” their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, which are all characteristics of a good apologist …one who doesn’t allow any one else to notice.
If Mr. Ehrman has avoided the posture of an apologist and arrived at some actual advice for living, bravo.
I’m a follower of Jesus and believe in His divinity. I don’t give a lot of thought to divine justification for suffering. For me, it is simply one of the effects of infinite preceding causes weaving back to first cause. Ehrman’s conclusions, while not revolutionary are, in a way, comforting that his path ends up where, I suspect, most experienced, wise and mature people have ended up for centuries.
antonio caetano
9 October 2008 at 8.12 am
Antonio: Thanks for your comment.
I have a clarifying question for you: do you believe that objectivity exists?
Second question: have you read Ehrman’s book?
Third question: have you read anything else that I have written, or have you concluded that I am a ’snob’ by reading one of my posts from your own (objective?) point of view and passing judgment?
I look forward to your answers.
17 May 2009 at 9.44 pm
“Unfortunately, this is not completely the point of Ecclesiastes or Job. But lets not let facts get in the way.”
This is a pretty odd statement. Do either of these books contain a summary stating what the “point” of their texts is, in regards to suffering? No. And so we’re left with many many centuries of various readers, religious offshoots, and traditions, all getting different things out of them.
Ehrman may be too limited in his survey of understandings, but intimating that there is a simple and obvious point for these books, and that you know exactly what it is, seems equally silly.
18 May 2009 at 4.01 pm
Drew: Neither Job nor Ecclesiastes provides a summary statement regarding suffering. That, however, was not my point. Neither book’s point is simply that ’suffering does not make sense.’ And that is the point Ehrman was making from those books. Therefore, he is wrong. Neither of those books make that point. As you yourself said, they do not provide a summary statement. So, to turn your comment back onto Ehrman, how did he get to his viewpoint on Job and Ecclesiastes if neither provides a summary statement?
Also, I never intimated that there is a simple and obvious point to these books nor that I know exactly what their points on suffering are (although I feel that I have a pretty good idea via study and the history of interpretation…neither of which agree with Ehrman). Merely that Ehrman’s view of these books is not correct.
18 May 2009 at 4.12 pm
Because Ehrman’s conclusion is precisely that, in fact: that neither book actually provides any coherent solution that satisfies either the question of suffering in general, or the problems raised with previous concepts of what suffering means. That is, after all, the whole thrust of his book: that there is no real answer to be found by relying in Scripture, just many different visions of what suffering is, all flawed as guides to a coherent theodicy.
18 May 2009 at 4.20 pm
Drew: Both Job and Ecclesiastes understand God as being behind all the absurdity and calamity in life. True, we cannot ultimately understand why certain things happen or why evil, injustice, suffering, etc. occur in the wise plan of an ultimately good and just God (even though he does not seem so good and just at certain points in our lives or from our limited, finite perspective). But I do not buy into the idea that Scripture is not to be relied upon when attempting to understand suffering. The Christian tradition is a rich one when asking such a question. Ultimately we look towards the renewal of the cosmos by God, who will vindicate his people and where justice will flow from his throne.
You may not like that conclusion and you may not rely upon Scripture to answer questions of theodicy. That’s fine. Rely on your own logic or some other source. But don’t claim to understand Scripture’s teaching on theodicy or claim that it ultimately gives no answer. Such a comment is so far away from the facts it is hard to take seriously.
18 May 2009 at 7.20 pm
I’m not sure what you’re getting at: you seem to concede Ehrman’s essential point (that no ultimate understanding is revealed) while disliking the fact that he’s making it. Saying that the tradition is rich in possible answers, or simply assuming that suffering must indeed have some higher purpose we don’t understand, doesn’t really contradict what Ehrman is arguing. And he very well can argue that it ultimately gives no answer: that’s the whole thrust of his argument. I can’t see that you’ve raised any “facts” that seriously dispute him, and indeed you seem to concede the core problem right from the outset.