Editing Epicureanism (section)

===Later antiquity===
The early Christian writer [[Lactantius]] criticizes Epicurus at several points throughout his ''Divine Institutes'' and preserves the ''Riddle of Epicurus'', or ''[[Problem of evil]]'', a famous argument against the existence of an all-powerful and providential God or gods.<ref>God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak – and this does not apply to God. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?|Lactantius|De Ira DeorumLactantius, ''De Ira Deorum'', 13.19 ([https://web.archive.org/web/20150912180840/http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/epicurea.html Epicurus, Frag. 374, Usener]). [[David Hume]] paraphrased this passage in his ''[[Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion]]'': "EPICURUS's old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"</ref> This type of ''[[trilemma]]'' argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists) was one favoured by the ancient Greek [[philosophical skepticism|skeptics]], and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an [[atheist]].<ref name="larrimore">Mark Joseph Larrimore, (2001), ''The Problem of Evil'', pp. xix–xxi. Wiley-Blackwell</ref> According to [[Reinhold F. Glei]], it is settled that the argument of ''[[Theodicy|theodicy]]'' is from an academical source which is not only not Epicurean, but even anti-Epicurean.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Glei | first1 = Reinhold F. | year = 1988 | title = Et invidus et inbecillus. Das angebliche Epikurfragment bei Laktanz, De ira dei 13, 20–21 | journal = Vigiliae Christianae | volume = 42 | issue = 1 | pages = 47–58 | doi = 10.2307/1584470 | jstor = 1584470 }}</ref> The earliest extant version of this ''trilemma'' appears in the writings of the [[Pyrrhonism|Pyrrhonist]] philosopher [[Sextus Empiricus]].<ref>Sextus Empiricus, ''Outlines of Pyrrhonism'', 175: "those who firmly maintain that god exists will be forced into impiety; for if they say that he [God] takes care of everything, they will be saying that god is the cause of evils, while if they say that he takes care of some things only or even nothing, they will be forced to say that he is either malevolent or weak"</ref>

Epikoros is a Jewish term figuratively meaning "a heretic", cited in the [[Mishnah]], referring to one who does not have a share in the [[world to come]]<ref>[[Mishnah]], Seder [[Nezikin]], tractate [[Sanhedrin (Talmud)|Sanhedrin]], 10a</ref> Although [[rabbinic literature]] does not make any specific reference to the [[Greeks|Greek]] philosopher [[Epicurus]], it is apparent that the term is derived from the philosopher's name,<ref>{{cite web|title=Jewish Encyclopedia|url=http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1640-apikoros|publisher=Funk and Wagnalls|accessdate=2013-03-30}}</ref> in reference to his views which contradicted Jewish scripture, the strictly [[Monotheism|monotheistic]] conception of [[God in Judaism]] and the Jewish belief in [[Jewish eschatology#World to come|the world to come]].
[[File:Lucretius, De rerum natura.jpg|thumb|''[[De rerum natura]]'' manuscript, copied by an Augustinian friar for Pope [[Sixtus IV]], c. 1483, after the discovery of an early manuscript in 1417 by the humanist and papal secretary [[Poggio Bracciolini]]]]