The editors are fully aware of the challenges posed by the interdisciplinary nature of issues pertaining to Old Testament ethics. In the introduction, they write:
Most of the contributors to this volume are philosophers; a few are biblical scholars. In our view, the problems raised by these texts are fundamentally interdisciplinary. On the one hand, they raise distinctively philosophical questions…On the other hand, answering these sorts of questions requires a great deal of awareness of and sensitivity to… [subjects that] fall squarely under the provenance of theology and biblical studies.But although philosophy clearly has a part to play in this interdisciplinary conversation, the editors observe that
…philosophers have not been rushing to address the issue; and scholars in biblical studies seem (to us, anyway) not to have addressed the crucial philosophical questions with the kind of thoroughness, directness, philosophical sensitivity, and rigor that philosophers of religion might otherwise hope for.It is the editors’ hope that this book will encourage more philosophical reflection on these problems and generate some long-overdue interdisciplinary discussion.
Divine Evil? includes of a number of papers by various authors, each of which is briefly critiqued by another contributor. The author of each paper also has an opportunity to reply to his or her critic. The book boasts an impressive list of contributors: Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, Paul Draper, Eleonore Stump, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Louis Antony, Peter Van Inwagen, and others. And although many of the replies are kept frustratingly short for reasons of space, overall the book lives up to expectations.
The problematic passages addressed in the book include the usual suspects: God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, for example, and—getting more attention than anything else—the slaughter of the Canaanites as recounted in the book of Joshua. But other things are discussed too, such as the Garden of Eden incident in Genesis 3, the conflict between Israel and the Amalekites, and Israel’s sacrificial system.
The first part of the book, following the editors’ introduction, is entitled “Philosophical perspectives: Problems Presented.” Accordingly, all of the major essays in this portion of the book are written by philosophers who maintain that the Old Testament passages in question pose a serious problem for many adherents to the Abrahamic religions. It is interesting to compare the approach of these authors to that of the New Atheists. One improvement is that, overall, the scholars in this book sound more like they are making arguments, and less like they are simply ranting against God and religion, than the New Atheists often do. Furthermore, they show much more sensitivity to, and appreciation for, critiques of their arguments. This is refreshing to see. That said, there is still a lot of emotion in this book, as one of the contributors, Christopher Seitz, observes. But emotion has a role to play in such discussions, and it is hard to say whether its function in this book is, on the whole, good or bad. On the other hand, the arguments of the critics in this book share at least one unfortunate feature in common with the attacks of the New Atheists: they are often based on fairly superficial readings of the texts in question. Louis Antony’s chapter is illustrative of this point. In her comments on Antony’s essay, Eleonore Stump says:
[Antony] runs through many biblical stories in short space with scant attention to the details of the text. She gives little consideration of alternative interpretations. And she avails herself of very little of the vast communal expertise that has been devoted to both the reading and the interpretation of these narratives by scholars from different disciplines, times, and world-views. What is needed for employing well a methodology combining philosophy and ancient Hebrew biblical narratives is missing in her chapter, in my view.Antony’s reply reinforces the point:
I can offer no defense against Stump’s challenges to my ‘scholarship’. But I do not claim to have produced a scholarly interpretation of the texts I discuss. I hope only to have reproduced a respectable instance of what my college English professors used to call a ‘close reading’ …So I’m fully prepared to learn that other—better, more defensible—interpretations exist. Still, I wonder: how different can these interpretations be from mine, and still be interpretations, rather than inventions?So the critics’ arguments for their own interpretations of the relevant texts sometimes leave something to be desired. But, again, one does see improvement over the typical New Atheist rant.
In the second part of the book, “Philosophical Perspectives: Solutions Presented,” a variety of approaches to dealing with these difficult Old Testament passages are voiced. Indeed, although each individual paper in the book is high-quality, the best thing about this section is the diversity of perspectives represented. Some contributors appeal to elements of skeptical theism, some offer a theodicy of God’s actions in the Old Testament, and others advocate nonliteral interpretations of either whole passages or certain offending words and phrases within the relevant texts. Many of the highlights of the book appear in this section: Mark Murphy’s paper “God Beyond Justice” with Wes Morriston’s critique, as well as Nicholas Wolterstorff’s intriguing interpretation of Joshua in “Reading Joshua.” Then, in part three, “Theological Perspectives,” there are two further essays, this time by biblical scholars. This is the section that is supposed to make the volume interdisciplinary, but it is clear that the editors were interested especially in getting more philosophers involved in the discussion, because philosophers of religion dominate the book.
One of the nice things about this book is that, despite being an academic title, it is fairly accessible, and would likely be helpful to the intelligent and interested layman. Murphy’s chapter seemed to be the most technical, but overall, anyone who has read previously on this or related subjects will probably find Divine Evil? very manageable. Furthermore, anyone interested in serious study of Old Testament ethics and the moral character of the God of Abraham should not overlook this book. It is an important contribution to the discussion.
Apologetics 315 Book Reviewer Justin Mooney is an undergraduate art and design student from Michigan. He has a passion for apologetics and is planning to study philosophy of religion in graduate school. More of his writing can be found at http://jmooney90.tumblr.com.
 Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2011. p. 19
 The editors prefer the term “Hebrew Bible,” noting also that “there is no unproblematic term for referring to the texts that we are taking as our focus.” Bergmann, Michael, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011 p. 1 n.
 Ibid. p. 4
 Ibid. p. 4
 For another recent interdisciplinary book on morally problematic Old Testament texts, see Thomas, Heath A., Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan. Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic 2013
 Bergmann, Michael, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011 p. 316
 Ibid. p. 50
 Ibid. p. 54