Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?

[Juvenal]

Pretty well off topic, but just so you're aware, Romans isn't one of the disputed letters. Also, I don't think it's quite right to say that pseudepigraphy has never been accepted. Do you have a source for that?

Ehrman is clear that he believes the practice was never acceptable, and Paul's references to verification clearly implied he was not okay with the practice applied to himself.

I'm aware that Romans is not suspect, and I'm not aware of interpolations in Romans, either.

If I recall, Dale Allison (certainly no "apologete") goes into the subject a bit in one of his works. I'll have to look it up, but I think he pointed out that, while not always accepted in the ancient world, often times they were.

It's fair to say the practice was acceptable to the pseudepigraphers, but it goes against reason to believe any original author would endorse the practice. Endorsing fraud, attached to their name, could only harm their reputations. Pseudepigraphs have been accepted only in so far as the practice escaped detection. By their nature, the authorship of the created documents is hidden.

I think in the end, though, he sided with the much more common view that an Apostle's school would often write in the Apostle's name, basing their views on that Apostle's teachings, and that was generally considered acceptable, and not necessarily pseudepigraphic. So, for instance, there were likely Pauline, Petrine, and Johannine schools writing under their names, with their authority, and this was cool with the early church. This is a view that others like Richard Bauckham, and Amy-Jill Levine seem to suggest as well. Also, do you know what passage you have in mind where you believe that Paul did not accept pseudepigraphic works? I'm trying to think of some passage that might allude to that, and I'm coming up blank. I know that at least a few pseudepigraphic works are at least alluded to in a number of New Testament letters (for instance, the Assumption of Moses, and the Book of Enoch).

I don't believe Paul ever addressed pseudepigraphy directly, but including one's mark to assure followers that a letter was authentic implies knowledge of fraudulent letters that should not be accepted.

As much as I like the idea of schools attributing later work to founders or original teachers, and have actually referenced the Euclidean school, for instance, more recent criticism has forced to me to end the practice. There is, to my knowledge, no account of an original author endorsing the practice, and most telling, no evidence for most of the purported schools.

[Tassman]

We make them whenever we make them. God's foreknowledge doesn't factor into it at all.

"Cannot" doesn't even factor into it in the first place. It's not that we cannot choose otherwise without compromising God's omniscience, but that whatever we choose to do, God already knew beforehand that we were going to make that choice.

See above.

[carpedm9587]

Relativity says that. If you are aware of the theory then you already know this. Did you watch the video that JimL posted a link to? It goes over all that. Watch it. well worth 32 minutes of your time.

I will look for the time. Where is the link?

no wrong again. There is experimental evidence that it is true such as the double-slit experiment. Pretty much all of quantum mechanics depends on probability functions that can collapse into different states depending on someone observing them but all states existing equally until that happens.

OK, I am not a physicist, but the double-slit experiment, as far as I know, is a validation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a theory in quantum mechanics. Note that the multiple states, at THAT quantum level, collapse to one. This is the opposite of every possible choice being real and spinning off an alternate universe, which is what, if I understood you correctly, you were proposing. Also, the HUP has been shown at the quantum level - it is not observed at our quanta, AFAIK. Finally, the multi-verse theory has its own problem related to determinism. When all possible choices are made by an actor, each spinning off a new universe, it is hard to describe any will as "free." Every agent is necessarily making every choice at every point in time. What is free about that? Am I missing something?

IN each of those possible universes you are the one making the choice freely. Whether you choose pancakes or bacon, you made the choice for that universe.

Watch the video JimL posted a link to.

I will do so. It would help to have the actual link. I'm not finding it.

[JimL]

I will look for the time. Where is the link?



OK, I am not a physicist, but the double-slit experiment, as far as I know, is a validation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a theory in quantum mechanics. Note that the multiple states, at THAT quantum level, collapse to one. This is the opposite of every possible choice being real and spinning off an alternate universe, which is what, if I understood you correctly, you were proposing. Also, the HUP has been shown at the quantum level - it is not observed at our quanta, AFAIK. Finally, the multi-verse theory has its own problem related to determinism. When all possible choices are made by an actor, each spinning off a new universe, it is hard to describe any will as "free." Every agent is necessarily making every choice at every point in time. What is free about that? Am I missing something?



I will do so. It would help to have the actual link. I'm not finding it.

You'll find the link in post #312 carpe.

[carpedm9587]

You'll find the link in post #312 carpe.

Thanks!

[JimL]

We make them whenever we make them. God's foreknowledge doesn't factor into it at all.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that god had this foreknowledge before he even created you. I think you can see what that means, yes?

"Cannot" doesn't even factor into it in the first place. It's not that we cannot choose otherwise without compromising God's omniscience, but that whatever we choose to do, God already knew beforehand that we were going to make that choice.

Again, if god has foreknowledge, then he had foreknowledge before creating you. In other words he created you knowing what choices you would make, which means your free will is an illusion.

[37818]

While our infinite God is fully omniscient. He through His agent (the Word [Logos] John 1:1-3), through whom He in a finite way created all finite things. Finite acts of God, which includes creation, Him walking in the garden (Genesis 3:8), and making appearances (Isaiah 6:5) are all done through His pre-incarnate Son (John 1:18).

His Son (the Word [Logos]) is God's finite agent in all things (John 1:3). For an example of finite non omniscience of God, by way of His Son as His finite agent, He says to Abraham, ". . . for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from Me." (Genesis 22:12.) He was God's Son prior to the incarnation (John 1:18, noting Mark 13:32 with Acts 1:7). The Son in that He "was God" being infinite with the Father, was also always uncreated and finite limiting Himself being "with God" (John 1:2). The error of open theism is, it fails to see the appearance of limited omniscience is because of the finite acts of God which are solely and wholly through His pre-incarnate Son (John 1:3!).

[Sparko]

I will look for the time. Where is the link?



OK, I am not a physicist, but the double-slit experiment, as far as I know, is a validation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a theory in quantum mechanics. Note that the multiple states, at THAT quantum level, collapse to one. This is the opposite of every possible choice being real and spinning off an alternate universe, which is what, if I understood you correctly, you were proposing. Also, the HUP has been shown at the quantum level - it is not observed at our quanta, AFAIK. Finally, the multi-verse theory has its own problem related to determinism. When all possible choices are made by an actor, each spinning off a new universe, it is hard to describe any will as "free." Every agent is necessarily making every choice at every point in time. What is free about that? Am I missing something?



I will do so. It would help to have the actual link. I'm not finding it.

I linked to the doubleslit experiment in my previous post. JimL linked to the video in his post. for your convenience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WfFkp4puw

The double-slit experiment is part of what led to the many world's theory to begin with. Because when they shot a single photon at the two slits, it appeared that the photon went through BOTH slots when it could only go through one! It created an interference pattern where if it had just chosen to go through one slot or the other, there would not be one. Yet when the photon itself is observed passing through the slots by setting up detectors it only passes through one or the other and there was no interference pattern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-w...interpretation

[Adrift]

Ehrman is clear that he believes the practice was never acceptable, and Paul's references to verification clearly implied he was not okay with the practice applied to himself.

Ok, are you pulling this from Forged? I'm wondering how his view lines up with the consensus of other contemporary scholars on the subject.

I'm aware that Romans is not suspect, and I'm not aware of interpolations in Romans, either.

Ok. Hmm. So why bring up the issue of pseudepigraphy when discussing Rom 8:29?

It's fair to say the practice was acceptable to the pseudepigraphers, but it goes against reason to believe any original author would endorse the practice. Endorsing fraud, attached to their name, could only harm their reputations. Pseudepigraphs have been accepted only in so far as the practice escaped detection. By their nature, the authorship of the created documents is hidden.

Well, we know that it can't be the case that the practice was only acceptable to pseudepigraphers, because Jews (and Christians) accepted clearly pseudepigraphical writings like Enoch and the fourth book of Ezra. I was wrong recalling that Dale Allison talks about the subject, it was James Dunn (again, not an "apologete").

Source: Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making, Volume 3) by James D. G. Dunn, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015

(2) A second suggestion is that pseudepigraphy was widely recognized as an acceptable literary device in the ancient world. This argument works well with documents which first appeared centuries after the claimed author had died. As B. M. Metzger observes, the Neo-Pythagoreans attributed their writings to Pythagoras himself, even though he had lived many centuries earlier. According to Iamblichus (c. 300 CE), indeed, it was an honourable act to publish one's treatises in the name of so venerable a teacher. It is hard to believe that such a convention was not recognized, at least by most thoughtful readers, in the case of, say, the Enoch corpus, the various Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, or the Apocalypse of Adam, all written probably between the second century BCE and second century CE. Similarly in the Christian period with the sixth-century works claiming Dionysius (or Denys) the Areopagite (Acts 17.34) as the author, but clearly drawing on Neo-Platonic philosophy. But does the argument work so well in the case of, say, Ephesians, which must have appeared within a decade or two of Paul's death? There is a major difference between a writer adopting the pseudonym of an ancient or symbolic figure from an earlier epoch, not hitherto known as an author, and someone purporting to continue a particular literary tradition within a few years of its author's demise. The former may count as an acceptable device which was not seriously intended to deceive. The issue of deception is more delicate in the latter, and there is sufficient evidence that the ancients were alive to the issue.

© Copyright Original Source

Obviously, this isn't a ringing endorsement for the claim of pseudepigraphy found in the NT, but I think it counters the notion that it was NEVER acceptable. It seems to me that it's pretty obvious that it was accepted on some level, and by more than just the pseudepigrapher himself.

Dunn goes on,

Source: Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making, Volume 3) by James D. G. Dunn, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015

(5) The most promising contribution to the discussion of NT pseudepigraphy in recent decades has been the thesis of D. G. Meade. He argues that the most obvious context within which to examine the issue of NT pseudepigraphy is not Greco-Roman literary genres and practices, and not simply particular Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, but the process in Jewish religious writing whereby tradition has accrued to a prominent historical figure, and particularly the process whereby an original oral or literary deposit has been expanded by the attribution of further material to the originating figure. He instances the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Solomonic corpus, and the Daniel and Enoch traditions. In each case he finds that 'attribution is primarily a claim to authoritative tradition, not a statement of literary origins', a consistent pattern of living tradition with the same features: (1) a revered figure in the past to whom a particular character of authoritative tradition could properly be attributed; (2) an elaboration of that tradition from within or at least in a manner whose continuity with and contemporizing of the original tradition were widely acknowledged; and (3) a recognition that the vitality of the tradition could not be maintained in that way when the connection and continuity with the authoritative originator became too distant, tenuous or wooden. When Meade turns to the NT he observes similar features in the letters usually regarded as pseudepigraphical, 'a consistent relationship between the development of the Petrine and Pauline traditions and the literary forms which they take'. In other words, the relation of Ephesians and the Pastorals to the undisputed Paulines could be regarded as equivalent to the relation of Second and Third Isaiah to First Isaiah. In each case the motivation was to 'make present, contemporize' (Vergegenwartigung) or renewedly actualize the authoritative Petrine and Pauline traditions for the following generation.

Of all the approaches to the issue of NT pseudepigraphy, Meade's seems to have the greatest potential to explain the conundrum of pseudepigraphy within the canon, that is, how it could be that the earliest Christians seem to have accepted documents claiming as author someone who was already dead. There was what might be called a biblical practice of continuing and developing a literary tradition, begun by an authoritative figure, after his death. In each case, if Meade is correct, the developed tradition would have been recognized as sharing in the authority of the tradition's originator and would have been accepted as also authoritative under his name.

© Copyright Original Source

I don't believe Paul ever addressed pseudepigraphy directly, but including one's mark to assure followers that a letter was authentic implies knowledge of fraudulent letters that should not be accepted.

As much as I like the idea of schools attributing later work to founders or original teachers, and have actually referenced the Euclidean school, for instance, more recent criticism has forced to me to end the practice. There is, to my knowledge, no account of an original author endorsing the practice, and most telling, no evidence for most of the purported schools.

By original author, are you referring to the original teacher, or the original author of the pseudepigraphical writing? And why should it matter whether or not we have an account of the original teacher endorsing the practice, if it was commonly accepted by his students, and later writers? I mean, I suppose it would matter to some extent, but if it were relatively common practice one would imagine that explicit endorsement wouldn't be unnecessary. At any rate, as mentioned above, we do have sources that suggest that pseudepigraphy was acceptable,

Source: Life of Pythagoras by Iamblichus, Chapters XXIX and XXXI, Translated by J. Dillon and J. Hershbell, 1991

On the subject of his wisdom, in a word, let the greatest proof be the commentaries written by the Pythagoreans, containing the truth about all things. They are well-rounded in all other respects, and encrusted with an old-fashioned and ancient style, exuding as it were a bloom not touched by hand. Composed perfectly with heaven-sent knowledge, they are full of most sagacious conceptions, and especially varied and versatile in form and content, remarkably simple and, at the same time, not lacking style, and filled to the utmost with clear and indisputable realities accompanied by scientific and full demonstration, what is called 'deductive argument.' (All this) if someone goes through them making use of the proper methods, and is not content with a casual or careless perusal.

These commentaries, then, transmit knowledge about the intelligibles and about the gods beginning from first principles.

Then they explain all physical matters, and give a complete account of both ethical and logical philosophy; and they provide all sorts of mathematical learning and the best sciences. In short, there is nothing concerned with human knowledge about anything whatsoever, which has not been discussed minutely in these writings. If, then, it be agreed that some writings now circulated are by Pythagoras, but others were composed on the basis of his lectures, and on this account the authors did not give their own names, but attributed them to Pythagoras as his work, it is clear from all these treatises that Pythagoras was sufficiently experienced in all wisdom.

...

And they (the Pythagoreans) kept aloof from lamentations, tears, and all such manifestations, nor did profit, desire, anger, ambition, or any such things become a cause of disagreement. But all Pythagoreans were so disposed to one another as a good father would be to his children.

It was a fine custom of theirs also to ascribe and assign everything to Pythagoras, and only very seldom to claim personal fame for their discoveries, for there are very few of them indeed to whom works are ascribed personally.

© Copyright Original Source

On sort of flip of this, Jerome mentions how Jude was rejected by some because of the clearly pseudepigraphical nature of Enoch that he quotes, but that they accepted it anyways,

Source: On Illustrious Men by Jerome

Jude the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal Book of Enoch it is rejected by many. Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.

© Copyright Original Source

Likewise, Eusebius offers his (and Origen's) thoughts on Hebrews,

Source: Church History by Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter 25

11. In addition he [Origen] makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: That the verbal style of the epistle entitled 'To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself 'rude in speech' [2 Corinthians 11:6] that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, anyone who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.

12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.'

13. Farther on he adds: If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul's.

14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it. But let this suffice on these matters.

© Copyright Original Source

While there are definitely a number of ancient writings that discourage out and out forgery and plagiarism, it seems the whole issue is not so black and white.

Of course, another take is simply that the New Testament lacks pseudepigraphy, or at least, blatant pseudepigraphy. Ben Witherington III (who I suppose you could argue is an "apologete" for his view, but no moreso Ehrman his), offers strong arguments in Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John that what is sometimes mistaken for pseudepigraphy (and he agrees that pseudepigraphy would have been unacceptable to the early church) has other explanations. Either arguing for genuine authorship, the use of scribes, composite writings that are linked to the author in question, and the like.

[JimL]

I linked to the doubleslit experiment in my previous post. JimL linked to the video in his post. for your convenience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WfFkp4puw

The double-slit experiment is part of what led to the many world's theory to begin with. Because when they shot a single photon at the two slits, it appeared that the photon went through BOTH slots when it could only go through one! It created an interference pattern where if it had just chosen to go through one slot or the other, there would not be one. Yet when the photon itself is observed passing through the slots by setting up detectors it only passes through one or the other and there was no interference pattern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-w...interpretation

Forget quantum mechanics and the many worlds theory, you don't understand it anyway. So lets just stick to this one universe which amounts to the same argument without having to deal with the intracacies of many you's in many worlds. It is your contention that god has foreknowledge, that god is eternal and has eternal forknowledge. That means that before you existed, before god created you, he knew how your entire life would unfold, knew every choice you would make from eternity. Right or wrong? The answer is obviously, right! So, tell us, if the evolution of your entire life exists eternally as knowledge in the mind of your creator, exists as knowledge even before you yourself exist, can you do anything other than what is eternally known that you will do. Of course you can't, and you know it, so stop trying so hard to fool yourself and just admit it.

[Juvenal]

Ok, are you pulling this from Forged? I'm wondering how his view lines up with the consensus of other contemporary scholars on the subject.

Yes, and no. It was from a talk Ehrman gave while promoting Forged (which I haven't read). New Testament criticism isn't even a hobby of mine, and to the extent I appreciate Ehrman, it's because he provides a compelling response to irritants like Carrier. Of Ehrman, I've only read Misquoting Jesus.

Ok. Hmm. So why bring up the issue of pseudepigraphy when discussing Rom 8:29?

To make the case that Christianity doesn't require inerrancy, to answer the piglet's argument referencing Rom 8:29 that, "I don't really have the option to pick and choose what I decide is correct," to further the argument that omniscience is best described as an ability that need not be exercised, to allow an omniscient creator to nonetheless be capable of creating humans with free will.

To be clear, if Paul's authentic writings are not merely inspired, but inerrant, the piglet's argument is unassailable. More, the mere existence of pseudepigraphy is insufficient for my counter-argument. My argument requires that Rom 8:29 can be rejected because it entails a logical error, while maintaining Paul was nonetheless inspired.

Well, we know that it can't be the case that the practice was only acceptable to pseudepigraphers, because Jews (and Christians) accepted clearly pseudepigraphical writings like Enoch and the fourth book of Ezra. I was wrong recalling that Dale Allison talks about the subject, it was James Dunn (again, not an "apologete").

Source: Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making, Volume 3) by James D. G. Dunn, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015

(2) A second suggestion is that pseudepigraphy was widely recognized as an acceptable literary device in the ancient world. This argument works well with documents which first appeared centuries after the claimed author had died. As B. M. Metzger observes, the Neo-Pythagoreans attributed their writings to Pythagoras himself, even though he had lived many centuries earlier. According to Iamblichus (c. 300 CE), indeed, it was an honourable act to publish one's treatises in the name of so venerable a teacher. It is hard to believe that such a convention was not recognized, at least by most thoughtful readers, in the case of, say, the Enoch corpus, the various Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, or the Apocalypse of Adam, all written probably between the second century BCE and second century CE. Similarly in the Christian period with the sixth-century works claiming Dionysius (or Denys) the Areopagite (Acts 17.34) as the author, but clearly drawing on Neo-Platonic philosophy. But does the argument work so well in the case of, say, Ephesians, which must have appeared within a decade or two of Paul's death? There is a major difference between a writer adopting the pseudonym of an ancient or symbolic figure from an earlier epoch, not hitherto known as an author, and someone purporting to continue a particular literary tradition within a few years of its author's demise. The former may count as an acceptable device which was not seriously intended to deceive. The issue of deception is more delicate in the latter, and there is sufficient evidence that the ancients were alive to the issue.

© Copyright Original Source

Obviously, this isn't a ringing endorsement for the claim of pseudepigraphy found in the NT, but I think it counters the notion that it was NEVER acceptable. It seems to me that it's pretty obvious that it was accepted on some level, and by more than just the pseudepigrapher himself.

Dunn goes on,

Source: Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making, Volume 3) by James D. G. Dunn, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2015

(5) The most promising contribution to the discussion of NT pseudepigraphy in recent decades has been the thesis of D. G. Meade. He argues that the most obvious context within which to examine the issue of NT pseudepigraphy is not Greco-Roman literary genres and practices, and not simply particular Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, but the process in Jewish religious writing whereby tradition has accrued to a prominent historical figure, and particularly the process whereby an original oral or literary deposit has been expanded by the attribution of further material to the originating figure. He instances the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the Solomonic corpus, and the Daniel and Enoch traditions. In each case he finds that 'attribution is primarily a claim to authoritative tradition, not a statement of literary origins', a consistent pattern of living tradition with the same features: (1) a revered figure in the past to whom a particular character of authoritative tradition could properly be attributed; (2) an elaboration of that tradition from within or at least in a manner whose continuity with and contemporizing of the original tradition were widely acknowledged; and (3) a recognition that the vitality of the tradition could not be maintained in that way when the connection and continuity with the authoritative originator became too distant, tenuous or wooden. When Meade turns to the NT he observes similar features in the letters usually regarded as pseudepigraphical, 'a consistent relationship between the development of the Petrine and Pauline traditions and the literary forms which they take'. In other words, the relation of Ephesians and the Pastorals to the undisputed Paulines could be regarded as equivalent to the relation of Second and Third Isaiah to First Isaiah. In each case the motivation was to 'make present, contemporize' (Vergegenwartigung) or renewedly actualize the authoritative Petrine and Pauline traditions for the following generation.

Of all the approaches to the issue of NT pseudepigraphy, Meade's seems to have the greatest potential to explain the conundrum of pseudepigraphy within the canon, that is, how it could be that the earliest Christians seem to have accepted documents claiming as author someone who was already dead. There was what might be called a biblical practice of continuing and developing a literary tradition, begun by an authoritative figure, after his death. In each case, if Meade is correct, the developed tradition would have been recognized as sharing in the authority of the tradition's originator and would have been accepted as also authoritative under his name.

© Copyright Original Source

By original author, are you referring to the original teacher, or the original author of the pseudepigraphical writing? And why should it matter whether or not we have an account of the original teacher endorsing the practice, if it was commonly accepted by his students, and later writers? I mean, I suppose it would matter to some extent, but if it were relatively common practice one would imagine that explicit endorsement wouldn't be unnecessary. At any rate, as mentioned above, we do have sources that suggest that pseudepigraphy was acceptable,

Source: Life of Pythagoras by Iamblichus, Chapters XXIX and XXXI, Translated by J. Dillon and J. Hershbell, 1991

On the subject of his wisdom, in a word, let the greatest proof be the commentaries written by the Pythagoreans, containing the truth about all things. They are well-rounded in all other respects, and encrusted with an old-fashioned and ancient style, exuding as it were a bloom not touched by hand. Composed perfectly with heaven-sent knowledge, they are full of most sagacious conceptions, and especially varied and versatile in form and content, remarkably simple and, at the same time, not lacking style, and filled to the utmost with clear and indisputable realities accompanied by scientific and full demonstration, what is called 'deductive argument.' (All this) if someone goes through them making use of the proper methods, and is not content with a casual or careless perusal.

These commentaries, then, transmit knowledge about the intelligibles and about the gods beginning from first principles.

Then they explain all physical matters, and give a complete account of both ethical and logical philosophy; and they provide all sorts of mathematical learning and the best sciences. In short, there is nothing concerned with human knowledge about anything whatsoever, which has not been discussed minutely in these writings. If, then, it be agreed that some writings now circulated are by Pythagoras, but others were composed on the basis of his lectures, and on this account the authors did not give their own names, but attributed them to Pythagoras as his work, it is clear from all these treatises that Pythagoras was sufficiently experienced in all wisdom.

...

And they (the Pythagoreans) kept aloof from lamentations, tears, and all such manifestations, nor did profit, desire, anger, ambition, or any such things become a cause of disagreement. But all Pythagoreans were so disposed to one another as a good father would be to his children.

It was a fine custom of theirs also to ascribe and assign everything to Pythagoras, and only very seldom to claim personal fame for their discoveries, for there are very few of them indeed to whom works are ascribed personally.

© Copyright Original Source

On sort of flip of this, Jerome mentions how Jude was rejected by some because of the clearly pseudepigraphical nature of Enoch that he quotes, but that they accepted it anyways,

Source: On Illustrious Men by Jerome

Jude the brother of James, left a short epistle which is reckoned among the seven catholic epistles, and because in it he quotes from the apocryphal Book of Enoch it is rejected by many. Nevertheless by age and use it has gained authority and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.

© Copyright Original Source

Likewise, Eusebius offers his (and Origen's) thoughts on Hebrews,

Source: Church History by Eusebius, Book VI, Chapter 25

11. In addition he [Origen] makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: That the verbal style of the epistle entitled 'To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself 'rude in speech' [2 Corinthians 11:6] that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, anyone who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.

12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.'

13. Farther on he adds: If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul's.

14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it. But let this suffice on these matters.

© Copyright Original Source

While there are definitely a number of ancient writings that discourage out and out forgery and plagiarism, it seems the whole issue is not so black and white.

Of course, another take is simply that the New Testament lacks pseudepigraphy, or at least, blatant pseudepigraphy. Ben Witherington III (who I suppose you could argue is an "apologete" for his view, but no moreso Ehrman his), offers strong arguments in Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John that what is sometimes mistaken for pseudepigraphy (and he agrees that pseudepigraphy would have been unacceptable to the early church) has other explanations. Either arguing for genuine authorship, the use of scribes, composite writings that are linked to the author in question, and the like.

I've let too many of your responses go unacknowledged in the past few months to be satisfied with giving myself yet another excuse, despite the fact I've been writing this abbreviated response for hours now, constantly interrupted by questions from students trying to cram for tomorrow morning's exam. Jing and an online practice exam is great for reaching students, but not so great for having a life during the semester.

Thank you for the detailed response.

I suspect you'd agree that "never" should not be treated as an absolute outside of mathematics. An overwhelming bias away from any occasion is sufficient.

The Neo-Pythagoreans are a special case, in that there was never a risk that their contributions would be confused with those of Pythagoras himself, much as modern-day Wiccans and Neo-pagans, appearing so long after the traditions they seek to resurrect have faded into history, could not be confused with their own originals.

By originals, I mean, for example, Pythagoras himself, and Paul himself, and Moses, Peter, Enoch, et al., not the pseudepigraphers who by their nature and intent remain anonymous. Like anyone with an interest in Pythagoras, I was aware of Iamblichus, but not of this passage. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

It was a fine custom of theirs also to ascribe and assign everything to Pythagoras, and only very seldom to claim personal fame for their discoveries, for there are very few of them indeed to whom works are ascribed personally.

At face value, it's relevant, but immediate objections arise to its acceptance as such. The first is that while Iamblichus was as close to a biographer as we have available, he was centuries removed from his principal, his work reads more as hagiography than biography, and most telling, the clearest example of misattribution, his eponymous theorem, predated Pythagoras by millennia.

As you suggest, this discussion is well astray from the main thread, and as I've suggested, I need to be up early tomorrow. I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your contribution.

[Sparko]

Forget quantum mechanics and the many worlds theory, you don't understand it anyway.

Oh the irony of that statement. You are the worst sufferer of Dunning-Kruger ever on the internet.

So lets just stick to this one universe which amounts to the same argument without having to deal with the intracacies of many you's in many worlds. It is your contention that god has foreknowledge, that god is eternal and has eternal forknowledge. That means that before you existed, before god created you, he knew how your entire life would unfold, knew every choice you would make from eternity. Right or wrong? The answer is obviously, right! So, tell us, if the evolution of your entire life exists eternally as knowledge in the mind of your creator, exists as knowledge even before you yourself exist, can you do anything other than what is eternally known that you will do. Of course you can't, and you know it, so stop trying so hard to fool yourself and just admit it.

Because God knew what I was going to freely choose before he made me. We keep telling you this but you can't get it through your thick ironclad skull.

ferrouscranus.jpg


https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/w...rouscranus.htm
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

[JimL]

Oh the irony of that statement. You are the worst sufferer of Dunning-Kruger ever on the internet.


Because God knew what I was going to freely choose before he made me. We keep telling you this but you can't get it through your thick ironclad skull.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26300[/ATTACH]


https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/w...rouscranus.htm
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

So, you believe that it makes sense to suggest that God, your creator, eternally knew what you, his creation, would freely choose before he made you. You really believe that makes sense? If you do, then you make it perfectly clear for all to see that the one with the impenetrable iron clad skull is yourself. You're a perfect test case to show the lengths to which some people will go to defend their long held beliefs, even to the point of believing their own obvious nonsense.

[Sparko]

So, you believe that it makes sense to suggest that God, your creator, eternally knew what you, his creation, would freely choose before he made you. You really believe that makes sense? If you do, then you make it perfectly clear for all to see that the one with the impenetrable iron clad skull is yourself. You're a perfect test case to show the lengths to which some people will go to defend their long held beliefs, even to the point of believing their own obvious nonsense.

And you are a perfect example of someone so ignorant that they can't understand anything whatsoever. You are so stuck in your own head that nothing anyone says ever makes a dent in your biases. You can't understand physics, or science, or even logic. You are a moron who thinks he is a genius. If there ever was an example for Dunning-Kruger syndrome, it would be you. You have delusions of competence.

[JimL]

And you are a perfect example of someone so ignorant that they can't understand anything whatsoever. You are so stuck in your own head that nothing anyone says ever makes a dent in your biases. You can't understand physics, or science, or even logic. You are a moron who thinks he is a genius. If there ever was an example for Dunning-Kruger syndrome, it would be you. You have delusions of competence.

I take it you were looking in the mirror during that rant. Seriously Sparko, the logic is pretty obvious in my argument, it's completely missing in yours. You're making yourself a laughing stock.