GakuseiDon

The reason I'm asking this is that if there is no connection between the Second Century mythicists and the First Century ones, then the Second Century mythicists can be ruled out as evidence towards a Christianity that started with a mythical Christ. (In the same way that I'm sure you'd agree that Second Century historicists shouldn't necessarily be used as evidence of First Century beliefs).

So can we rule out M Felix and other Second Century writers as evidence towards a First Century belief in an ahistorical Jesus? Were their beliefs stand-alone, or was there influence from the First Century?

Yes, I read that with great interest, thanks.

Ted Hoffman

Because you want us to ignore other texts that Tertullian wrote, it is not worth repeating. More importantly, Doherty has expounded on the subject and introduced the concept of euhemerism, which makes everything crystal clear.
To be sure, this is what Doherty writes:

GakuseiDon

The thing is, M Felix appears to be doing exactly the same thing, as Andrew also mentions in his OP. You could replace the name of "Tertullian" with "M Felix" in Doherty's comment, and it would capture what I'm claiming for M Felix. In fact, I'll do just that, and I'll let you .

M Felix says:
For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man. The Egyptians certainly choose out a man for themselves whom they may worship; him alone they propitiate; him they consult about all things; to him they slaughter victims; and he who to others is a god, to himself is certainly a man whether he will or no, for he does not deceive his own consciousness, if he deceives that of others.

Doherty asks on his website: Could a Christian author who believed in a crucified Jesus and his divinity really have been capable of this manner of presentation?

My reply would be:
It is integral to an argument M Felix is making which contains the premise that the men being discussed — those chosen by Egyptians for worship — were entirely human in their origins and activities. As such, the quote has a specifically narrow focus that in M Felix's mind could not be broadened to include the case of Jesus. Thus, his words would have conjured up no qualms about vulnerable Christian doctrine, and he would feel no necessity to insert some kind of qualifier for Jesus.

Roger Pearse

As I understand it, it is the consensus of scholarship that MF copied Tertullian. The philological analysis undertaken by Carl Becker in the 1950's, analysing how MF used various other authors (he quotes a whole chapter directly from Cicero, for instance) shows that MF is dependent on Tertullian. This disposes of that portion of the 'Jesus Puzzle', tout court.

But it doesn't really matter for the argument in question. For the 'Jesus Puzzle' argument to work, Minucius Felix *must* -- not 'could' -- have written before Tertullian. Those equipped to evaluate the matter (I am not one of them) do not hold this view. Some think that MF preceded Tertullian; but insofar as a consensus exists, it seems to be the reverse of that needed by the argument.

The other point I would make about understanding Minucius Felix -- the speech by Octavius is a response to the speech by Caecilius. The passages match up directly. To understand any comment, look at the accusation. (Not my idea, incidentally, but something I saw in a French edition/translation).

The comments of MF are unusual; but I think the conclusion drawn from them imposes a modern way of looking at Jesus on the text. No-one in antiquity disputed the existence of Jesus. On the contrary, pagans such as Caecilius positively lampooned the Christians for worshipping a man who was executed as a delinquent slave. Think of the Alaxamenos grafito. This is why MF avoids the issue, rather as atheists tend to avoid having their own views scrutinised and turn the question back on their accusers. Jesus was an embarassing figure to an educated pagan. Nothing was served by discussing him.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ted Hoffman

This is incorrect. There is no scholarly consensus on this matter.
Are you referring to Der Octavius des Minucius Felix?
Could you outline these alleged 'philological' grounds that show that MF is dependent on Tertullian?
We will come to that once you have shown that MF copied Tertullian.
No one disputed the 'existence' of Inanna or Semele either. It doesn't mean squat. The Roman Empire was a melting point of religion and myth. Everyone had an old wive's tale that they believed in so to start disputing the historicity of other people's myths would be like living in glass houses and throwing stones at others: their challenges and disputes revolved around questions of immortality, potency of power, morality etc. Not historicity. Tatian admits to the pagans: "we too deal in legends similar to your own".
Yes, these Christian 'tales' were not very high-tech. True.
MF does refer to "a man who suffered death as a criminal". He does not call this man Jesus. If he was embarrased by that man, he would not refer to him at all, leave alone refer to him in the demeaning and contemptible manner he does.
He finds it contemptible to worship "a man who suffered death as a criminal".

I can see that you are in agreement with Doherty then that the idea of worshipping "a man who suffered death as a criminal" was contemptible and embarrasing to MF.
To mythicists, this means that MF's brand of Christianity did not have a HJ.

GakuseiDon

Ted, as I pointed out to Doherty, the phrase in question is "a man who suffered death as a criminal for wicked crimes". This did not apply to Christ for, as M Felix points out, "love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

Ted Hoffman

You write that "M Felix appears to be doing exactly the same thing". That may be so, but to argue that "MF is in fact doing exactly the same thing" would demand that we account for the context and what the authors write elsewhere.
The fact of the matter is that the words in question were not written in isolation so we have to accord due consideration to the context.

I can write "that woman" and Pearse here may also write "that woman". We have written the same "thing" yet may have very different meanings: we are not necessarily referring to the same woman. You switch Pearse with Hoffman like you are doing with MF and Tertullian and you get different women.

Ted Hoffman

Roberts Donaldson translation has:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../octavius.html
And the ANF translation has:
What translation are you using?

GakuseiDon

The same:

he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve

Ted Hoffman

Please dont muddle issues. I am referring specifically to:
So you are saying this [crucified] man is not Christ: who is it then?