Were Bible Stories Copied from Ancient Myths? (Part 2 of 2)

Continuing from our previous post, British writer Sam Woolfe maintains that the biblical account of Jesus’ life is not original, “probably the story which actually has the most parallels with other religions,” representing “the archetypal story of the archetypal hero.”¹ As evidence Woolfe points to Peter Joseph’s conspiracy documentary Zeitgeist, even though Woolfe admits the film contains factual errors and overstates comparisons “in order to support his conspiracy theory.” Nonetheless, Woofe insists “there are still similarities between Jesus and other gods, suggesting that the authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other religions.” He particularly notes the “dying-and-returning-god” pattern of various myths, particularly Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, and Krishna, concluding this “suggests that there never was a real, historical Jesus.”

An Open-and-Shut Case?

The idea of an ancient “dying-and-returning god” archetype comes from Sir James George Frazer’s 1890 The Golden Bough: a Study in Comparative Religion. However, subsequent scholarship has proven the claim to be farcical. These so-called dying (or disappearing) and returning gods of ancient mythology are actually accounts of deities that died and did not return, or deities that returned but had not died. “The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”²

The same would apply to the alleged pagan origins of the virgin-birth narrative in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels.³ Reputable scholarship avoids such erroneous claims, even among liberal critics who deny the historicity of Christ’s virgin birth.⁴ One such scholar, Thomas Boslooper, writes: “The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus’ ‘virgin birth’ is not ‘pagan’.”⁵

Did Jesus Plagiarize His Teachings?

Jesus is recorded as saying, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12 NKJV). It has been purported that he or his followers plagiarized this golden rule from eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and/or Jewish rabbis.⁶ But the statement, which is merely a tiny segment of an extensive discourse, is noticeably different from the prevailing ethic of reciprocity (“Give to get something in return”) or the negative and passive version, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” Beyond a presumed maxim of human nature endowed by the Creator, and irrespective of the fact that Jesus is the first on record to express the positive and active form of the principle, he also cited “the Law and the Prophets,” which predate these eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and Jewish rabbis. Critics are assuming their conclusion to be true without proof.

Let’s Be Honest

When deceptive ploys, whether intentional or not, are used to challenge the Bible’s integrity, this ought to have the opposite effect once exposed. Secondary sources are not always credible. The popular charge that biblical writers borrowed from pagan mythology tends to be “characterized by brief word, phrase and sentence quotations that have been lifted out of context or incorrectly translated and used to support preconceived theories. Sweeping generalizations based on questionable evidence have become dogmatic conclusions that cannot be substantiated on the basis of careful investigation.”⁷

Commonsense Observations⁸

1. There is nothing unusual or suspect about any ancient record corresponding to the environment in which it emerged. There are only so many options available. Linguistic, historical, and cultural parallels can often confirm the realism and credence of biblical narratives but do not necessarily prove borrowing in any direction.

2. If something is historically true, it is not unprecedented to find similar reports in multiple accounts, albeit with variations developing over time. The prospect of different versions sharing a common historical core does not constitute anyone copying from anyone else.

3. When direct dependence can be established (e.g. quotes and illustrations), it is important to consider the nature of the usage and how it either affects or does not affect the matter at hand. Long before the modern copyright mentality, ancient authors could reasonably expect their contemporary readers to recognize well-known allusions and quoted materials.

4. If borrowing did occur yet historical positioning is overlooked, or if the dating of a presumed source is tentative or inaccurate, the Bible may have been the original source rather than vice versa.⁹ This would also include oral traditions that predate written texts.

5. Biblical documents were written by multiple authors for particular reading audiences at various times in different environments addressing a variety of issues. Effective communication naturally involves the employment of images and terminology intelligible and meaningful to the targeted audience (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22).

6. Apparent similarities do not override or discount significant differences. The uniqueness of the biblical record must still be accounted for.

7. When alleged parallels are artificial, exaggerated, and distorted, preconceptions may appear to be bolstered but the pursuit of truth is disrupted. 

Concluding Remarks

It is helpful to remember, “though the Bible arose in the ancient world, it was not entirely of it; though its history and its people resemble those of the surrounding nations, yet it radiates an atmosphere, a spirit, a faith far more profound than, and radically different from, that of any other ancient literature.”¹⁰ May we approach the biblical text, if not with eagerness to learn, at least with honesty and fairness.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Sam Woolfe, “How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories,” Sam Woolfe (25 April 2013) <Link>.

     ² Jonathan Z. Smith, “Dying and Rising Gods,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade (London: Macmillan, 1987): 4:521-27. This would apply to all the deities Woolfe has listed, including Osiris, the Egyptian patron of the dead, who was reportedly murdered by his brother but then brought back to life by Isis. This “rebirth” enabled him to be lord of the underworld in the afterlife, since he could no longer rule the world of the living. Ancient Egyptians considered various facets of reality but did not envision a resurrection in this world (see Ogden Goeler, “Commentary,” in The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth By Day, The Complete Papyrus of Ani, ed. Eva von Dasso [San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994]: 153). See also Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (NY: HarperCollins, 2012); Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “The ‘Dying and Rising God’: A Survey of Research from Frazer to the Present Day,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts,” eds. B. F. Bernard and K. L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004): 373-86.

     ³ Walter Bundy opines, “The idea of a supernatural or virgin birth is pagan, and it must have found its way into the story of Jesus through Gentile-Christian channels” (Jesus and the First Three Gospels [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955]: 11).

     ⁴ See Thomas Boslooper, The Virgin Birth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), who attributes the virgin-birth story to the influence of Philo’s allegorical method on Hellenistic Jewish Christianity. Also James Veitch, The Birth of Jesus: History or Myth? (Wellington: St Andrew’s Trust, 1997), who surmises that Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives were derived from stories in the Hebrew Bible.

     ⁵ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.136. Reginald H. Fuller, in his critical review of Boslooper’s work, states: “In an amazingly comprehensive historical survey of the doctrine from its first appearance in the infancy narratives to the later phases of biblical criticism, the author offers at every point shrewd and penetrating judgments. The historical survey in itself makes the work invaluable” (The Journal of Religion 43:3 [July 1963]: 254-55). Louis Matthews Sweet observes: “After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births” (The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1906]: 188).

     ⁶ This is ranked # 1 among Melloson Allen’s “10 Influences on the Bible,” in Jamie Frater’s Listverse.com's Bathroom Reader: Loads of Top Ten Lists (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2014).

     ⁷ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.135.

     ⁸ See Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003): 1-4.

     ⁹ For example, Apollonius of Tyana (AD 15-100) was a philosopher and mystic, and his biographer Philostratus (ca. 172-250) claims he performed miracles like Jesus (Life of Apollonius 3.38-39); by the late 2nd century he had become a cult figure rivaling Jesus. However, these stories “are at several points obviously influenced by stories about Jesus, not the other way around” (Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998]: 131).

     ¹⁰ G. Ernest Wright, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962): xi.

Related Posts: Were Bible Stories Copied from Myths? (Part 1), The Study of Ancient History, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Related articles and videos: Dewayne Bryant, Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?

Image credit: http://www.featheredprop.com/did-christianity-borrow-from-other-religions/

Were Bible Stories Copied from Ancient Myths? (Part 1 of 2)

Sam Woolfe, a freelance writer and blogger based in London, claims the Bible’s “myths, stories and parables” are not original but “have been borrowed or copied from other myths from other religions …. if some of the central stories of the Bible have been plagiarised, then how can the Bible be the inerrant word of God? Is it the word of some other god before Christianity? Or does plagiarism in the Bible show that the book is not holy, but merely an invention of the imagination?”¹

In an attempt to establish his case, Woolfe points to similarities between biblical narratives and various ancient legends and myths, including Pandora’s Box and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Before we examine these allegations more carefully, suffice it to say that the way in which Woolfe has presented his arguments gives the appearance of a credible indictment against the Bible that some might find convincing. However, he, like other antibiblicists, ignores major differences among the various accounts, while cherry-picking, generalizing, and reconfiguring elements to create so-called “parallels” that make the case seem more plausible than it really is. Woolfe’s “well-researched content,” as he describes it, proves to be presumptive and deceptive.

Pandora’s Box?

According to Greek mythology dating back to at least the 8th century BC, Pandora was the first woman to be created, who opened a large storage jar (referred to as a “box” in modern descriptions) that unleashed all the evils of mankind. While there are similarities here with the Genesis 3 record of sin’s advent into the world, the details of both stories are so markedly different, one would be hard pressed to see much of a parallel unless the differences are overlooked. Nevertheless, the Genesis account was written about seven centuries before the earliest recorded appearance of the Pandora’s Box myth—hardly a case of plagiarism!

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis 1–3?

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient Mesopotamian saga about the exploits of King Gilgamesh. The oldest version of this epic poem has been dated as early as about three centuries prior to the earliest biblical text. According to the Gilgamesh narrative, a man is created from clay who lives among the animals until he is tempted by a woman offering him food. He leaves his paradise home, puts on clothes, and a snake later steals the plant of immortality. With this selective summary, it is easy to see parallels to the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. The problem is, these comparisons hinge on overgeneralization and distortion of certain details,² while numerous others are ignored.

Following the story’s standard Akkadian version, Enkidu, who is neither the first nor the only man, is created by the goddess Anu, throwing a pinch of clay into the wilderness, at the instigation of the gods to counter King Gilgamesh’s aggression. Enkidu is a wild-man covered in hair (later described as the son of a gazelle and wild donkey), eats grass and wears “a garment like Sumukan,” living among the animals and preventing a trapper from catching them. The trapper brings Shamhat, a temple prostitute, to seduce Enkidu and introduce him to the ways of civilization. After six days and seven nights of carnal relations, Enkidu is lured out of the wild and taken to the shepherds’ hut where they give him food and seven jugs of beer. He turns into a human, bathes and clothes himself, and guards the sheep. After Enkidu fights with Gilgamesh, they become friends and go on adventures battling mythological forces. When Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh travels to “the Garden of the gods, a paradise full of jewel-laden trees.” In yet another episode Gilgamesh is told about a plant at the bottom of the sea that restores youth; he procures the plant only to have it stolen by a snake. More adventures follow.³

When the story of Enkidu and Gilgamesh is read alongside the biblical account of Adam and Eve, clear parallels are hard to find and nearly every comparison seems forced. It does demonstrate, however, that if something is removed from its context, it can mean just about anything one wants it to mean. 

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis 6–9?

The Epic of Gilgamesh also contains the account of a great flood, comparable in many ways to what is recorded in Genesis 6–9. Grieving the loss of his friend Enkidu, Gilgamesh roams the wild searching for the secret of immortality. He meets Utnapishtim, who tells of the gods having sent a great flood on the city of Shuruppak to destroy mankind. But one of the gods (Ea) instructed Utnapishtim to build a boat according to precise measurements (10 x 12 cubits in height and width, with six decks), sealed with pitch and bitumen, to keep alive “all living beings.” Aboard the boat were all of Utnapishtim’s kinsmen, all of his possessions, and “all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen.” The god Shamash caused it to rain bread and wheat; then the mountain was submerged in water, and the gods were frightened by the flood and fled to the heavens. After six days and seven nights, the boat landed on Mt. Nimush. On the seventh day Utnapishtim sent out a dove followed by a swallow, both of which returned, but the raven he sent out did not return. Utnapishtim released everything and offered a sacrifice and incense, then he and his wife became like the gods. 

Critics argue that the two versions match so closely that the Bible’s flood narrative must have been derived from the Gilgamesh flood narrative. But is this the only or even the best possible explanation? The fact of the matter is, there are literally hundreds of curiously analogous flood stories among a wide variety of ancient cultures throughout Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, and North, Central, and South America.⁴ Would anyone argue that all these traditions are based on the same fictitious tale, or could there have been a real catastrophic deluge that gave rise to such widespread and consistent testimony?

What if all these stories share a common historical core? Significant variation is not surprising, given the human tendency to modify and embellish, particularly over an extended period of time across vast geographical regions and copious linguistic and cultural groups. In fact, too much overlapping of details would warrant suspicion of collusion or copying. Yet striking commonalities among so many retellings of the event are more readily explicable if every culture descended from the survivors of a catastrophic flood.⁵

Concluding Thoughts

If one begins with certain preconceptions and relies too heavily on secondary sources, knowledge of the true state of affairs will almost surely be eluded. Any assertions based on contextual disregard, unprovable presuppositions, overstatements, and failure to consider other viable options, are deeply suspect. When misinformation and deception are involved, all credibility is lost. In our next post, we will address related challenges to the biblical story of Jesus.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Sam Woolfe, “How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories,” Sam Woolfe (25 April 2013) <Link>.

     ² Jamie Frater’s Listverse.com's Bathroom Reader: Loads of Top Ten Lists (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2014) includes “10 Influences on the Bible” by Melloson Allen, in which the assertion is made that the Epic of Gilgamesh tells of a snake that steals the plant of immortality from Enkidu, the alleged archetypal Adam. But this is not true. The plant was stolen from King Gilgamesh, for whom there is no biblical parallel. 

     ³ The entire extant narrative, translated by Maureen Gallery Kovacs, can be accessed here <Link>.

     ⁴ For a detailed listing with summaries, see Mark Isaak, “Flood Stories from Around the World,” The TalkOrigens Archive (2 Sept. 2002) <Link>.

     ⁵ Biblical catastrophism challenges the popular theories of uniformitarianism and macro-evolution, and is consistent with geological phenomena such as sedimentary layers across and between continents, marine fossils on mountains, lack of erosion between rock layers, catastrophic fossilization, abnormal seismites in rock layers, wide-ranging sedimentary deposits, explosion of fully formed fossils above the Cambrian strata, and rapid rather than gradual deposition of sedimentary rock layers. See Jeff Miller, “Was the Flood Global? Testimony from Scripture and Science,” Apologetics Press (2019), <Link>.

Related Posts: The Bible in Perspective, Were Bible Stories Copied from Myths Part 2

Related articles: Jeffery P. Tompkins, Population Growth Matches Bible and DNA Clock; and Y-Chromosome Study Confirms Genesis Flood Timeline; Dewayne Bryant, Does the Bible Contain Fables?

Image credit: https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-the-epic-of-gilgamesh-73444

Religion Explained?

British comedian and avowed atheist Ricky Gervais offers a concise albeit cynical explanation of religion.¹ He argues that early childhood conditioning accounts for widespread faith in God and is comparable to believing in Santa Claus and fairies. “I think there would be more atheists and less faithful,” Gervais opines, “if you weren’t allowed to teach anything, you weren’t allowed to mention any gods or any beliefs or atheism until they were 20.” He reasons, as the myth of God is ingrained in impressionable minds, “if you’re born in India you’re probably a Hindu, if you’re born in America you’re probably a Christian, if you’re born in Pakistan you’re probably a Muslim. That’s a coincidence, isn’t it—that you’re always born into the right god … into the right religion?” He thinks it strange that people still hold onto the medieval belief that God made the universe, so he asks, “Who made God?” If the assumption is that God has always been, then Gervais responds, “Let’s just say the universe has then. Let’s just cut out the middle-man; it saves time.”

An Eternal Universe?

This overly simplistic scenario generates more questions than answers. Gervais is merely repeating what astronomer Carl Sagan said back in the 1970s about a timeless universe,² one of the most unscientific assertions that can be made! The very year Sagan died, renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking affirmed: “All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning …. probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”³

If the ultimate cause of the universe is God, where did God come from? The question assumes our limited naturalistic environment can adequately explain an unlimited supernatural creative force, even though the evidence points to a source of the natural world beyond nature itself.⁴ It was at the beginning of the cosmos that time, space, matter, and finite energy all came into being. The ultimate cause of the physical world is thus outside of time (eternal), outside of space (omnipresent), outside of matter (immaterial), and outside of finite energy (omnipotent). The God of the Bible is the infinite, independent, supernatural primal cause of the finite, dependent, natural world (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 3:4).

Childhood Conditioning?

Where one is born and the environment in which one is raised may account for nominal faith (including atheism), but this ignores so many factors inexplicable from a purely naturalistic worldview. Childhood conditioning does not explain why adult atheists become believers, like William J. Murray, son of militant atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, or Oxford professor C. S. Lewis, biochemist Alister McGrath, geneticists Francis Collins and George R. Price, astrophysicist Hugh Ross, astronomer Allan Sandage, philosopher Nina Karin Monsen, Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, journalist Lee Strobel, MIT professor Rosalind Picard, et al.⁵ Apparently how the evidence is interpreted and the conclusions drawn therefrom are not simply a matter of the mind but of the will.

Christianity originated in the Middle East, yet there are followers of Christ not only in America, but in Pakistan, India, and all around the globe. The Christian movement emerged in a hostile Jewish environment and spread throughout a resistant polytheistic world. These early believers did not choose their religion because it was familiar and popular. They embraced the Christian faith as true, irrespective of cultural conditioning and geographic location.

The sarcastic characterization of one conveniently “born into the right god … into the right religion” is a straw-man argument that miserably fails. Former atheist turned Christian apologist, Forest Antemesaris, reasons that if 1,000 people stole his identity and claimed to be Forest Antemesaris, this would surely not prove his nonexistence. “If the God of Christianity exists, the claim of other gods existing does not affect His existence.”⁶

J. Warner Wallace, the son of a devout atheist, was not raised in a Christian home. In his mid-30s, having examined a wide range of philosophical and religious worldviews, he began an investigation of God’s existence and the claims of Christianity. He writes, “Like so many others, I came to believe Christianity is true, not because of my surrounding influences, but on the strength of the case itself.”⁷ Wallace notes further that Christians continue to be the most persecuted religious movement worldwide, especially in Islamic and communist nations. “These suffering believers did not become Christians because Christianity was the default religion of their region or culture.”

Wissam Al-Aethawi, a former Iraqi soldier and engineer who grew up in Baghdad, was disillusioned by a religion that taught hate. He purchased a Bible, was convicted by its message, and obeyed the gospel. He now works with Arab immigrants in the USA, using the New Testament to teach them English, large numbers of whom are experiencing religious freedom for the first time and coming to faith in Christ. You can read Wissam’s story here: <Link>.

Conclusion

Michael Patton observes, “Christianity is the only viable worldview that is historically defensible. The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, as they are based on public events that can be historically verified. In contrast, the central claims of all other religions cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith.”⁸ The Christian movement began and flourished, not in a vacuum, but among real people in the first century world who could readily test its claims (cf. Acts 26:26; 1 Cor. 15:6). The credibility and tenacity of the Christian faith, void of violent threats and coercion, better explains why it continues to thrive worldwide.

The geographical location of one’s birth and cultural environment of one’s upbringing is a weak rationale for religion in general and Christianity in particular. Since the creation of the world the evidence of God has not been hidden, and to stubbornly ignore it is inexcusable (Romans 1:18-22). May the entire human creation hear the words of God's revelatory vessel: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Ricky Gervais, “Religion Explained in 2 Minutes,” YouTube video clip posted by Mike Panagopoulos (25 March 2018), <Link>.

     ² Carl Sagan, “On God and Creation,” YouTube video clip posted by angryatheistdotnet (13 Dec. 2009), <Link>. For a good response to this question, see Kent Hovind’s reply to Reinhold Schlieter, <Link>.

     ³ Stephen Hawking, “The Beginning of Time,” 1996 lecture, <Link>.

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Are You Sure About God? Part 1 and appended links. 

     ⁵ This extensive list would also include Emory professor Mark Bauerlein, biologist Alexis Carrel, physicist Russell Humphreys, Harvard law professor Simon Greenleaf, et al. Though certainly not exhaustive, for the names of other prominent figures, see “List of former atheists and agnostics” <Link>.

     ⁶ Forest Antemesaris, “Five Bad Reasons to Reject Christianity,” Apologia Institute (21 May 2018), <Link>.

     ⁷ J. Warner Wallace, “Am I a Christian Simply Because I Was Raised in a Christian Culture?” Cold Case Christianity (31 Jan. 2018), <Link>.

     ⁸ Michael Patton, “Christianity, the World’s Most Falsifiable Religion,” credohouse.org (07-08-2013), <Link>.

Related Posts: Where's the Proof of God?, Does the Bible Condone Sexual Assault and Rape?

Related articles: Rosalind Picard's MIT Professor Meets Author of All Knowledge, Michael J. Kruger's Can We Believe God's Word is True Because Our Parents Told Us?, Nathan Liddell's I Was Born This Way (a Christian)? 

Related Videos: Cancel Culture & Christianity

Image credit: https://www.on-magazine.co.uk/arts/comedy/live-review/ricky-gervais-sheffield-city-hall-humanity/

The Most Powerful Argument Against God?

     One of the greatest obstacles for many in accepting the reality of God is the problem of evil, pain, and suffering. The argument can be traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus ca. 300 BC. If God is all-good and all-powerful, why does evil exist? If he desires to take away evil from the world but cannot, he is not all-powerful. If he can take away evil but does not, he is not all-good. If he is neither willing nor capable, he is neither all-good nor all-powerful. If he is both willing and capable, why does evil exist?   

     On the surface this may sound like a compelling argument, but is it valid? If the logic is so incontrovertible, why have there been staunch theists long before, during, and ever since the time of Epicurus?

The Question is Reasonable, But is the Conclusion Reasonable?

     Do “bad things” necessarily disprove the existence of a supreme causal entity beyond our universe? Do “bad things” then prove that something does come from nothing, that lifeless matter does generate intelligent life, and that specified complexity (intelligent design) does happen randomly without a purposeful designer?¹ Do our unanswered questions eliminate the answers we already have? Is human ignorance so powerful that it justifies the rejection of any supernatural creative force outside our universe and beyond our comprehension? If there is a problem we have difficulty understanding, might we be the problem? Is it possible that there is a purpose to the “bad” that we are not grasping, or perhaps the “bad” has a solution we are not looking for or not willing to accept?²

The Question No one Seems to be Asking …

     Why is there so much “good” in the world? Why isn’t anyone asking that question? If there is a black dot on an otherwise blank page, and passers-by are asked what they see, almost everyone will hone in on the black dot. Why? What about the rest of the page – the vast majority of the page – that surrounds the dot? We tend to be so focused on tiny abnormalities that we fail to see and appreciate everything else. The reality of evil, pain, and suffering grabs most of our attention because it’s not normal. With all the negativity in our newscasts and conversations, we seem oblivious to the plethoric beauty and decency in this less-than-perfect world. How do we explain love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control? If we are merely an evolutionary accident of amoral, unintentional, mindless forces directed by nothing and heading nowhere, there ought to be a whole lot more “bad” and a whole lot less “good” than there actually is.

     Maybe we’re asking the wrong question. To say – “Why is ‘evil’ in the world?” – presupposes: (a) knowledge of what constitutes “evil,” (b) knowledge (and appreciation) of what constitutes the contrasting “good,” and (c) an objective standard beyond oneself that determines what is “evil” and what is “good.” Is abortion evil or good? Is genocide evil or good? Who decides? You? Me? Adolf Hitler? Mother Teresa? Nazi Germany? ISIS? The society in which I live? Someone else’s society? Or is there an objective standard beyond any individual or social group? The question presupposes a higher authority (God?).³

     The irony is that evil and suffering exist, not because there is no God but because people reject God and then live accordingly. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, They have done abominable works …” (Psalm 14:1). While the basis of the world’s evil lies in a practical denial of God, this is frequently twisted around to serve as what appears to be one of the most powerful objections to God’s existence.

Starting with a False Premise  

     Those who reject the God of the Bible because of evil, pain, and suffering are actually rejecting a misconceived version of God. It is true that the God of the Bible is all-good and all-powerful,⁴ but it is not true that he is only all-good and all-powerful. There are other aspects of his nature that provide a fuller, more balanced image. To assert that the God of the Bible can do anything and always gets what he wants is a fallacy not based in scripture. There are some things he cannot do. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). He cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13). He cannot do what is logically contradictory or impossible, like make a “square circle” or create a “married bachelor.” While the God of the Bible is sovereign,⁵ this doesn’t mean he always gets what he wants. Even though he desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), not all are willing to accept his conditions of salvation (Matt. 7:21; 23:37; etc.). God cannot be understood apart from all his attributes: justice, holiness, love, mercy, forbearance, et al., which, by the way, are often left out of the conversation.

A Revised Premise

     In order to have the greatest state of goodness in the world, it is necessary for some specific goods to exist that entail the possibility of certain evils. Humans are designed with the ability to think and the freedom to choose. A God of love doesn’t force us to act against our wills but grants freedom. The blessing of freedom involves choice, and choice includes not only the possibility of making good decisions but also bad ones. It is impossible for God to have made us free moral agents and yet take away our capability of making wrong choices. Freedom without choice is a logical contradiction.     

     Now God has provided an instruction manual to guide us in the right direction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but when people disregard divine directives and make bad decisions, pain and suffering often result. It is man, not God, who has created slavery, whips, bombs, death camps, liquor, pornography, pollution, environmental destruction, false religion, and so on. The gift of freedom, when misused, accounts for the majority of human misery.⁶

Is All Suffering Evil?

     Most consider something good if it brings pleasure and bad if it causes pain, but this is shallow and shortsighted. What about things such as courage, patience, resilience, and determination? The imperfections of this world serve a purpose in allowing us to grow and develop into mature, responsible beings in a way that would otherwise not be possible. The suffering we see in the lives of others provides opportunities for compassion and service. God’s desire for his creatures seems to be, not the suffering itself, but the positive and beneficial effects. “Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope” (Rom. 5:3-4 ESV).

     Hardships also help to create an acknowledgment of human weakness and the need for God in one’s life. Pride and arrogance are self-destructive traits (Prov. 16:18), but suffering has a way of helping put things in perspective. It is said that when a man is flat on his back, the only direction he can look is up. “My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Psa. 73:26).⁷

Conclusion

     The problem of evil, pain, and suffering may offer an excuse for rejecting God, but it provides no solid proof that God isn’t real. It’s okay to have questions, but it’s not okay to ignore answers that challenge unfounded preconceptions. Whether or not I’m contributing to making this world a better place, how is shaking my fist at the concept of God going to make any positive difference?

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Are You Sure About God? (Part 2).

     ² See Richard Parr, “Big Questions of Life: Is there a God?,” HubPages (23 Oct. 2015), <Link>.

     ³ Listen to the thought-provoking exchange between atheist David Silverman and theist Frank Turek on this question, <Link>. Also Dennis Prager's commentary on Subjective vs. Objective Morality, <Link>.

     ⁴ Psa. 18:30; 19:7; 136:1; 147:5; Jer. 32:17; etc.

     ⁵ Isa. 46:9-10; Dan. 4:35; Psa. 115:3; 1 Tim. 6:15; etc.

     ⁶ Even natural calamities are ultimately linked to human sin. From a biblical perspective, the earth’s environment today is significantly different than it was prior to the catastrophic global flood (Gen. 6–9). See Wayne Jackson’s “Why Do Natural Disasters Happen?” <Link>, where he observes: “No wickedness, no Flood. No Flood, no change of earth’s environment. No change of earth’s environment, no geological disasters. Thus, no wickedness, no geological disasters.”
    ⁷ The last portion of this article is a revised version of the 8th June 2016 post, <If God is So Good ...>.

Related posts: Where's the Proof of God?, Religion Explained? 

Related articles: Kyle Butt, Providence and Evil 

Image credit: http://www.yenmag.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/h-armstrong-roberts-woman-holding-hands-up-to-face-with-shocked-expression.jpg