Vorkosigan

He left a couple of years ago and went on to annoy bigger game on XTALK.

Vorkosigan

EarlDoherty

I apologize in advance for the length of this posting. I also hasten to add that this is not simply a rehash of what I've written on my site. I've had some further insights since then and have come up with different ways of presenting the arguments.

I said in my Rebuttal article that Don was guilty of “atomism,� which is a technical term for taking words or phrases out of context and giving them a significance the atomist chooses to read into them, rather than what they are actually saying or what purpose they serve within that context. (This is commonly done in regard to the OT “prophecies� of Jesus, for example.) Don has claimed to be interpreting Minucius Felix’s statements about the crucified man and his cross according to their contexts, but his analysis of those contexts is done atomistically. He seizes on words and phrases which strike him as supportive of his case, without a proper analysis of how they fit into the passage. For example, from a recent post in reply to Ted Hoffmann:

Well, of course, the words and phrases in bold can be said to be “positive� in nature, per se. Highlighting the words “swelling� and “expanded� as having some relevant positive significance is certainly reaching a bit, but this actually epitomizes the atomistic approach: if it sounds in any way supportive, or fitting the desired meaning, take it and claim that it supports one’s case. The proper question is, how do these phrases and sentiments relate to the statements about the crucified man and his cross? A much more detailed and nuanced analysis of what they mean and what role they serve in the line of thought one can trace throughout this passage is required before it can be declared, based on such phrases, that Felix is speaking in a positive fashion about the crucified man and his cross. This is Don’s basic deficiency, in that he fails to provide this comprehensive and comprehensible analysis. In fact, by being atomistic in this way, he has been led down the wrong road to the wrong conclusions. This I hope to demonstrate as we go along.

But let’s start at the beginning. Don tries to claim (and he’s not the first to do so) that the way both Caecilius’ accusation and Octavius’ response are presented or phrased has certain implications which will enable him to extract meanings which are not evidently there at the surface level. This is a cousin to atomism, and a common approach to texts in the apologetic field (and even scholarship in general). When one doesn’t like what the text seems to be saying, force it to be saying something else. Allegorical interpretation of the bible, going back into pre-Philonic Alexandria, is one such device, and it’s still employed where something like Genesis is concerned. Here we don’t have allegory, but the claim of “implied meaning.�

Let’s first examine the pagan Caecilius’ accusation in chapter 9. Here, and elsewhere, I will use my favorite translation, that of The Fathers of the Church (which I referred to in my rebuttal article).

“And anyone who says that the objects of their worship are a man who suffered the death penalty for his crime, and the deadly wood of the cross, assigns them altars appropriate for incorrigibly wicked men, so that they actually worship what they deserve.�

The accusation as stated here is that the Christians’ objects of worship include (a) a man crucified for a crime, and (b) the cross itself; the latter is hardly the very cross he was crucified on, but the cross as symbol of the manner of the man’s death. But something is going on here that has hitherto been overlooked. Caecilius sets this accusation in the context of labeling such objects of worship (man & cross)—which he metaphorically refers to as “altars�—despicable things (implied by “appropriate for� wicked men), and as such fitted for despicable people. In other words, the two are alike, and one deserves the other. I call this a ‘complementary linking’. It might be compared to a modern person claiming that mind-altering drugs are evil, and that the people who use them are evil, and thus the thing used and the users themselves make a fitting combination, one complementing and deserving the other. Thus, Caecilius has offered his accusation by doing two things at once: he states it and editorializes it all in one breath..

The same approach first appeared a few sentences earlier, when Caecilius makes another accusation:

“I am told that, because of I know not what foolish belief, they consecrate and worship the head of an ass, the meanest of all animals—a religion worthy of and sprung from such morals.�

Again, he is editorializing by offering another complementary linkage between the object worshiped and those doing the worshiping: Christians worship the head of an ass, which, being the meanest of animals, is a worthy fit with those who do so. The two belong together, one complements the other.

Now, Caecilius, even if he is a fictional character created by Felix, may be said to represent common pagan thinking about Christianity at the time, but it is the author himself who is responsible for the particular words put into his mouth and how they are presented in context. Those two examples of the type of editorializing I have pointed out (linking the object worshiped and the people worshiping it and calling them similar and complementary) are literary devices, hardly matching the content of actual word-on-the-street accusations. The crucified man and his cross being “altars appropriate for wicked men� (including the metaphorical use of “altars�) has not been lifted from common parlance. That type of subtle commentary is too sophisticated for general oral usage or transmission. It can only be a literary twist provided by Felix. The matter is clinched by the fact that the ‘complementary’ linking approach is used twice in the same passage, regarding two separate accusations. It is impossible that multiple examples of such a sophisticated manner of expression would be found in oral usage. Thus, one has every right to conclude that such sentiments must reflect Felix’s own attitudes, since he has arbitrarily inserted them. (This kind of methodological process of identifying a writer’s personal imposition of his own—or his community’s—ideas and orientation on a passage or tradition, such as in the case of the Gospel evangelists, is a common feature of critical biblical research.)

And I might add that since the same device is used in regard to two different accusations, the same attitude on the part of Felix must be in common with them both. It logically follows that the denigrating attitude clearly present (and which no one would doubt) in regard to worshiping the head of an ass MUST be present in regard to worshiping the crucified man. In other words, the alleged distinction between all those other accusations and the one about the crucified man and his cross cannot stand in the face of Felix's identical editorializing treatment of both the man and the ass.

So we can further enlarge on one of my regular objections to the orthodox spinning of this document, both in the accusation and response passages. Not only has Felix included the central and most sacred aspect of his own faith as part of a wretched litany whose associations of horror are at the very least bound to rub off on it, he offers, in addition, his own editorializing on the subject which further compounds the negativity. I maintain that it would be impossible for a Christian writer who believed in now-orthodox doctrines to do such a thing.

One of Don’s strategies has been to focus on the specific wording of the passage in Latin. Literally, it says “those who speak of their ceremonies (of worship) (as directed to) a man punished with the ultimate penalty for (his/a) crime, and the deadly wood of the cross…� Because Caecilius’ words do not refer to the man directly as a criminal, but rather as one “put to death for a crime,� this is supposed to remove him in Felix’s mind from any aura of guilt or negativity; it is supposed to offer the option that Felix regarded him as not actually guilty of the crime. I suggest two things: (1) Caecilius’ words would be a very (perhaps the most) natural way of referring to a criminal and his fate in the context of the idea that he was guilty. Let’s try an analogy. “Ted Bundy was put to death for killing two dozen women.� This simply means what it says. (Bundy was a notorious American serial killer, executed about 15 years ago.) It would hardly be anyone’s chosen way to suggest that no guilt is being implied, that he was executed on false charges and was not guilty of the murders after all. Yet this is what Don would have us believe. If that were what the writer meant to say or imply, he would certainly have had to qualify this statement in a way which clearly stated and demonstrated why Ted Bundy was not guilty of such a thing, and why he shouldn’t have been executed (and why, moreover, it would be OK to hold him in high esteem when the outside world is condemning you for doing so). And (2), in the matter of Felix’s crucified man, it would (as we can see by the analogy) be too subtle and obscure to overcome the overwhelming negativity and detrimental effect resulting from how the accusation has been presented, and how it will be answered.

These things will become even clearer when we move on to the response to Caecilius in chapter 29. Since we have introduced Ted Bundy, let’s try presenting Octavius’ remarks in those terms. I’ll paraphrase the Fathers translation.

“Moreover, when you ascribe to us the reverencing of Ted Bundy, a murderer of women, you are traveling a long way from the truth, in assuming that a murderer deserved, or that a psychopath could bring it about, to be accorded such reverence. Foolish indeed any group that would give special regard to such a man, when his execution by a justice system that found him guilty demonstrates his clear lack of worthiness and benefit to us.�

What is this analogy saying? That Ted Bundy was not a murderer? That he was not a psychopath? Is the person being addressed “traveling a long way from the truth� in that Bundy was NOT either of these things? Of course not. And no one would take it that way—without some very explicit statement to the contrary, making it clear that Bundy did not in fact murder these women and was wrongfully executed. Rather, the meaning is that the accuser is a long way from the truth in declaring that we reverence Ted Bundy. That is the most straightforward and natural interpretation of what is being said. And it would be universally so interpreted without some clear and explicit comments to point us in a different direction.

Why does the speaker include his comments after “a long way from the truth�? Simply as an explanation for why the accuser is wrong in saying we reverence Ted Bundy. The speaker is protesting: how can you think that a murderer deserves such reverence? How can you think it would be possible for a psychopath to gain that reverence? What fools we would be to reverence a man like Ted Bundy, in the face of the sentence meted out to him, for how could we appeal to the memory of such a monster and gain any respect or benefit from it?

Where in this analogy is the qualification, where are the words to imply that Ted Bundy was innocent, not a monster, someone worthy of reverence? Of course, they are not there. Nor, I maintain, when we switch to the passage in Felix, are they supplied in the remarks that follow about the Egyptians, even by subtle implication (and in any case, why merely imply, why be subtle?). But that part of it is for another day.

So let’s move from Ted Bundy to Octavius’ crucified man.

“Morever, when you ascribe to us the worship of a malefactor and his cross, you are traveling a long way from the truth, in assuming that an evil-doer deserved, or a mortal could bring it about, to be believed in as God. That man is to be pitied indeed whose entire hope rests on a mortal man, at whose death all assistance coming from him is at an end.�

These are the Christian Octavius’ words. They are certainly blunt. He calls the man in question a “malefactor� (“criminal� in the ANF). In the next sentence he calls him an “evil-doer� and a “mortal�. Why is Caecilius “a long way from the truth�? Because no evil-doer deserves to be worshiped; because no mortal could get himself to be believed a god. Any person who places his hope in a mortal is “to be pitied� because any benefit from him ceases at his death. This is no less straightforward and universally interpretable than the analogy with Ted Bundy. The language and sequence of ideas is exactly the same. The lack of any qualification or statement to point the reader in a different direction is equally lacking. Octavius takes over Caecilius' terminology about the man being a criminal, with no attempt to soften it. The negative tone and effect is identical, if one does not choose to read something into it which can’t be found in the words. Yet Don insists on adding a whole new layer of meaning and implication: “But it’s OK that we worship this man, because he wasn’t a criminal and he wasn’t a mere man.� This is asking an awful lot of the reader’s intuition and his ability to read between the lines.

Don asks why Felix added those remarks after “far from the truth� if he didn’t want to imply something? Why not? They are perfectly natural. They are not an implication of anything, they are an explanation of why Caecilius is wrong. What was Felix/Octavius to say? “No, we don’t!�? That wouldn’t get him very far. Maybe, “Ah, yer muther duz too!� Perhaps he might have said, “Come and see our ceremonies, and you’ll see that we don’t.� That’s pretty weak, and offers no immediate reason for Caecilius to see the error of his accusation. What Felix does offer is actually quite powerful, at least to a rational person. And it’s philosophical, which is right up Felix’s alley. He has discredited the accusation in the best way he knows, by showing how and why the thought that Christians would worship a crucified man is unacceptable and ridiculous—even an “indecency� which has to be defended against, as he puts it in his comment immediately preceding, a comment applying to the whole list of accusations. He is offering REASONS for his denial: that the criminal “doesn’t deserve� and the mortal “isn’t able.� These remarks are in perfect alignment with Felix denying the whole idea, especially when they occur in juxtaposition with his response to the other accusations, which no one would doubt for a moment that he is denying.

Let’s look again at the context, the juxtaposition with those other accusations. Let’s ask somewhat facetiously, does Felix offer qualifications in regard to them? Does he try to explain why it’s OK to reverence the genitals of the priests, or maybe that it’s not really the genitals at all, but only the priest’s knees? “You wander far from the truth in thinking that it’s the genitals we are bowing toward; rather, it’s to those knees on which the priest rests when praying to God, which thereby deserve reverence.� Does he try to point out that the pagans are misunderstanding the Christian rite of child sacrifice, that it’s OK to slay an infant, perhaps because they are following God’s original instruction in regard to Isaac and the demand he made of Abraham?

Naturally these would be ridiculous claims, and Felix does not try to excuse the accusations or offer qualifications. The point is, why include in this passage something which you would have to claim does need qualification or excuse, something which is the direct opposite of those other accusations? Why offer the accusation about the crucified man in the same list as the others if, (1) Felix did not regard them in the same category of reprehensibility, and (2) he did not want the risk of having the reader take them all the same way, a risk that was exceedingly high, if not guaranteed, given the manner of his presentation? This aspect of the question is so blatantly obvious, it amazes me that anyone is incapable of seeing it. It has nothing to do with any arguments of mine; it is simply there in the text itself.

The only way Felix could extricate himself (and Jesus) from a bad situation which has been entirely of his own doing, since he has presented his material this way, would be to unequivocally and plainly spell it out. “No, he wasn’t a criminal; no, he wasn’t a man; no, this accusation is not like the others. I agree that reverencing the priest’s genitals and sacrificing children would be utterly reprehensible and I adamantly deny that we do so, but the accusation that we worship a man and his cross is entirely different, and I was an idiot to include the latter with the others…�

Needless to say, Felix doesn’t do this. And to claim that the remarks about the Egyptians serve this purpose is demonstrably false. Such a demonstration was provided in my rebuttal article. In fact, I have shown that they serve to do the opposite. Rather than rescue the crucified man, they support Felix’s condemnation of the accusation. We can revisit that demonstration, as well as cover further points such as Felix’s discussion about crosses, though I won’t do it in this posting, which has probably exceeded the limit of the average person’s attention span (or at least, that was Don’s opinion—I don’t think I misread his reference to the aspirin—in regard to the somewhat lengthy explanation of the smoking gun passages in my rebuttal article). In any case, if Don disagrees with that demonstration, then I invite him to do his own. Let him trace in detail—not just atomistically lift out certain words and phases, as I quoted at the beginning—the connective tissue between the sentences about the crucified criminal and mortal, through those referring to the Egyptians, and show us, not only how my demonstration was incorrect, but how the Egyptian remarks can logically be seen as reversing the plain meaning of the crucified man remarks.

I will try not to make every posting a mini-article in itself, and I will no doubt be making quick replies to individual points along the way. I hope that others will make some comments (agreeing or disagreeing) as well, not just Don. For the moment, I’m going to focus my time and attention on Minucius Felix, and if anyone wishes, we can get into the question of how Felix fits into the wider picture of the various “Christianities� of the first and second century. At some point I’d like to offer comments on a couple of other threads I’ve noticed lately, those talking about the sublunar realm and about Middle Platonism, but not yet. I do have limitations on my time (lots on my plate), and there will be days when I can’t post at all.

EarlDoherty

Well, I didn't want to sound dogmatic.

And yes, one can adopt any beliefs one wishes that make one feel good. I just have a preference for conducting my life according to something that I can regard as reality. Before I can make that judgment, I have to investigate the evidence from a rational point of view. We're doing that here, and I hope you'll be following along.

I would also advocate one other thing. That one's beliefs (and the inevitable desire to have others share them) should not do harm or impede society's progress. Unfortunately, too much of what belief in a risen savior involves these days (and has always involved) does just that.

But I'm going to drop this exchange before I'm reminded by some moderator or other that it doesn't belong here.

EarlDoherty

That might be possible I suppose, but wouldn't this all the more necessitate an explanation for the reader as to why such a comparison would be wrong in this case? If Felix saw it that way, surely he would be afraid that his readers would too. Why juxtapose and treat the two subjects in a way that would suggest he agrees with it?

mata leao

Mr. Doherty, with all due respect, I dont understand the debate here....every first year seminary student knows the basic "drill" concerning the nomenclature behind the substitionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross and the many chronological textual pre-figurations of such death-beginning with the pre-figuration of the ram caught in the thicket (pre-figuring Jesus' death as a sacrifice and also his substitionary death as God's Son in place of Abraham's(and universally in place of all mankind)....the long lineage of mosaic and levitical sacrificial system as a didactic tool to teach and prepare humanity for the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ........the ancient practice of the "scapegoat" whereby a goat was made the 'transgressor' and all the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to the scapegoat and the gfoat was sent 'outside the gates' and sent into the desert to "take away the sins"of the people......

cont.....the passover lamb(required to be a young lamb without blemish-ie. pre-figuratively "without sin", whose blood was to be placed on the lentils of the doorpost so the angel of death would "pass over ".......and the many prophetic pre-figurations "he would be numbered with the transgressors(criminals/law breakers)..he would "become sin(scapegoat)"....he would be "slain outside the gates (at golgotha)"(where criminals were executed...he would be condemned (use of criminal technology), he would be "made to become sin"(scapegoat reference again).....by "his strpes all would be healed'(another reference to punsihment for criminals(flogging,Roman scourging).....
The point being, theologically speaking, Jesus Christ , was in fact pre-figured/destined to be spat on, whipped, scourged, crucified betweeen two thieves(likely murderers) etc. and that any careful reading (then or now) of the old testament or torah would show same.

EarlDoherty

I should have known better...

spin

Sounds like a line from a song.

Don't let it bring you down... :worried: so does that...

This is an open forum, so anyone can engage in comment. It just means you might have to get selective. :thumbs:


spin

GakuseiDon

I'll start my post by clearing up a misunderstanding, which also ties nicely into some parts of my reply below.

In my first rebuttal article, I made a comment that, if the Octavius was written around 160 CE, this was a "late date". I later confirmed this "late date" in my second rebuttal, but Earl took this to mean that I agreed that the Octavius was written in the 160 CE. No doubt the fault was mine in the way I expressed it, but I'm actually agnostic on when M Felix was written. Obviously any post-Tertullian date would be extremely problematic for Earl's thesis. But I regard any date of around 160 CE or greater as significant, since by then pagans would have had an idea on what the Christians of that time believed regarding a historical Christ.

One of the main criticisms that I have of Earl's treatment of Second Century writings is that he tends to treat them as though they wrote in a vacuum. But I think that it is likely that by the time that M Felix wrote, pagans had heard that Christians worshipped a crucified man who they believed was a god. Tacitus said as much in around 115 CE (assuming that he did indeed write the comment attributed to him, which appears likely). Justin Martyr wrote at least two Apologies, one to the Roman Senate and another to the Emperor, in the 150 CEs.

It may be worthwhile to confirm this with Earl here. Is around 160 CE a reasonable date for when pagans probably believed that Christians believed in a crucified godman?

I agree with Earl here. The accusations were not a dry philosophical rebuttal of Christianity, but were expressed from the perspective of the shameful practices and beliefs of the Christians of the day.

Many of these accusations were also addressed by other apologists, as I noted in my first rebuttal article. Tertullian also refers to the charge that Christians worshipped a donkey's head, and there is the famous graffiti "Alexmenos worships his god" showing a man with a donkey's head being crucified.

I'm not sure that I agree here. I can't see the point of M Felix trying to reply to accusations that pagans WEREN'T making, if this is what Earl is saying. I would assume that the accusations that M Felix puts into Caecilius's mouth were an accurate reflection of what pagans were saying at the time. As I noted above, many of the accusations that M Felix defends were also addressed by other Christian apologists of this time, indicating that the accusations were common in that time.

I'm loathed to analyse analogies too far, since arguments tend to bog down on the analogy rather than arguing the point in question. So I'll move on to:
As I pointed out earlier, no orthodox Christian would disagree with M Felix on that passage. I regard this as a significant point. If there are no explicit non-orthodox views, and the views being expressed are compatible with orthodoxy, then all that is really left is the accusation that M Felix could have been more outspoken and explicit about his actual beliefs.

I think Earl needs to reread his own comment. He says:

In the next sentence he calls him an “evil-doer� and a “mortal�. Why is Caecilius “a long way from the truth�? Because no evil-doer deserves to be worshiped

Isn't this in fact a qualification, at least of "evil-doer"? If my reading is correct, then M Felix has in fact denied "evil-doer", since no "earthly man" would have been regarded as such (discussed further below). And Christians of the day like Justin Martyr and Tertullian definitely believed that Christ was not a mortal or "earthly man".

Was Christ crucified as a criminal, according to orthodox Christianity? There can be no doubt that he was (assuming a HJ, of course!). As Andrew Criddle notes earlier in this thread, in the "Martyrdom of Pionius", Pionius writes:

For you have also heard that the Jews say: Christ was a man, and he died a criminal. But let them tell us, what other criminal has filled the entire world with his disciples ? What other criminal had his disciples and others with them to die for the name of their master? By what other criminal' name for so many years were devils expelled, are still expelled now, and will be in future? And so it is with all the other wonders that are done in the Catholic Church. What these people forget is that this criminal departed from life at his own choice.

M Felix can hardly deny that Christ was crucified as a criminal, and in my view he doesn't try. His defense is that no earthly man could be given such reverence, therefore he was actually not an earthly man. M Felix distinguishes between those things that are "earthly" and "heavenly":

Plato's God is by His very name the parent of the world, the artificer of the soul, the fabricator of heavenly and earthly things...

The same man also declared that demons were earthly, wandering, hostile to humanity.

Thus, M Felix wouldn't have believed that a "non-earthly" man was an evil-doer.

Tertullian makes much the same point, contrasting "earthly" and "divine". While hardly a defense of Christ, it IS a defense of what the Christians of the day believed. And that, to my mind, is the key factor linking those passages.

How would the pagans have viewed M Felix's article? Assume, for a moment, that they were aware of at least Tacitus's, Lucian's or Pliny's comments, then they would have been aware that Christians worshipped someone they regarded as a god. I suggest that they would also have read into M Felix's comments the same things that later apologists did. I can't imagine that M Felix wouldn't have known his audience's beliefs.

If M Felix was concerned to deny that Christians worshipped a crucified man, then why is the comment on "an earthly being" required? Surely "you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking that a criminal deserved to be believed God" would be enough.

Or, if as Earl says, M Felix is pointing out that no "mortal man" should be believed to have been God, then where does that leave Christians like Tertullian, who believed that Christ WAS a God? Was M Felix ignoring them?

(I'll leave the comments on the Egyptians until later, since they are not as significant as the ones examined above).

Ted Hoffman

Andrew,
You stated:
Jesus Christ was not a martyr so I am not sure the model fits well. Some Christians believed that he suffered but some did not. Marcion for example did not believe that Christ suffered. Yet these gnostic Christians also exhibited the same stubbornness that you use to argue that:
Stubbornness is stubbornness, not evidence of a HJ. You did not explain why a purely spiritual deity cannot inspire as much stubbornness and death-wish attitude as a demigod.

This still doesnt support your case. That is how Ignatius chose to deal with is 'sufferings'. It made him feel better to imagine he was walking the same path his 'lord' did. Even Paul says he died and resurrected with Christ.

I would just like to see evidence of this "collective committal to be martyrs rather than worship Caesar' (or similar words)." And perhaps show us how its germane to Christians and martyrdom.
I think just about every view at the time was idiosyncratic. There was no orthodox Church. We had several cults and several hybrids of Christianity, Judaism and paganism.
It doesnt mean anything one way or the other to say they were weird. We just have to face the fact that he held them and yet he was a Christian.
And you dont agree that we should define "Jesus"? Paul has him as a pre-existent God. Others have him as a man who was adopted by God etc.

I do not think that you have provided ample reasons for believing Theophlus used John. You know of any scholars that argue that?

I am sure Doherty will clarify anything wrt MF.

andrewcriddle

As Rhetoric IMO what Felix is doing, more or less works.

Caecilius presents the arguments about Christianity being nasty: obscene rituals, black magic etc.

Octavius responds that these claims about Christianity are illegitimate and can be more appropriately applied to pagan religion.

He avoids giving the detailed information about the inner beliefs and practices of Christians that would make it clear why these libels arise. (There clearly are important things that Felix is not going into such as why Christians are called Christians.)

There are two positions that Felix could be holding here, a/ That some superstitious Christians do more or less do these things but not my type of Christian, or b/ the Christian beliefs and practices that give rise to these libels are being radically misunderstood.

Reasons for preferring b/ are that i/ the Octavius gives the impression of defending 'mere Christianity' not some subgroup within it. ii/ There is at least a hint at the end of the Octavius that there is important teaching still to come for Caecilius iii/ The idea that Felix did not venerate some form of Christ does put him out on a limb among all other early Christian writers we know of.

Andrew Criddle