I was asked my opinion about a quote allegedly by Euripides, which reads:


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Euripides (Εὐριπίδης) was alive from about 480 to 406 BC, and in his lifetime, he wrote about 95 plays, 18 of which have survived completely and many more as fragments. His most known works are Alcestis, Medea and The Bacchus. He is known for his representation of traditional, mythical heroes as ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances--which is a story told many times over in modern day writing.

It's a disputed quote, mostly because it's not at all clear if it was written by Euripides or not. Charles Bray, in his 1863 'The Philosophy of Necessity: Or, Natural Law as Applicable to Moral, Mental, and Social Science' quotes it first, without a source. Afterwards, it got picked up and appeared in many more books on philosophy and ancient Hellenic culture. That said, let's look at the statement itself. Bray's quote is a little different. It reads:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

He says about the quote:

"It is probable that what we call evil is the best, if not only means of producing and preserving the good. Is our calling it evil then merely a misnomer, or must we not rather admit that we are obligated to limit the power of God, and that He cannot produce the good in its full amount without the evil, an that one is absolutely necessary to the production of the other?"

Evil is such a subjective term. As Brey says, evil is defined by good, and good by evil. You can't have one without the other. Defining both good and evil in relation to humanity is different than defining good and evil in relation to a God. Because there are ethics involved, it means you need to have a grasp of not only the way the subject thinks, but of their ability to understand the consequences of their actions.

I don't think we can understand the way the Gods think or act, and I am very sure that we cannot comprehend life as They do. The Gods are immortal; Their plans span many mortal lifetimes, and what we might consider evil, to Them may be just a link in a chain. Can we judge the Gods by our limited ethics? Personally, I don't think we can--or well, we can, but I don't think it's useful to do so.

I don't think the quote which is allegedly by Euripides is useful in the Hellenic context. It is a human way of looking at the divine, and as such, it will always fall short--in relation to Hellenism or any other religion. I think it's a beautiful quote, but in Hellenism, where very few--if any--actions of the Gods can even be called 'evil' even by human standards, it's meaningless.