Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 10-22-2005, 11:05 AM

I came across something today that may explain why MF finds the idea

Quote:

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross

so very very shocking.

In the Martyrdom of Pionius Pionius (killed probably around 250 CE) says

Quote:

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. Again, they assert that Christ performed necromancy or spirit-divination with the cross.

(The authenticity of this martyrdom is a mater of some dispute IMO it is authentic but in any case it represents ancient attitudes.) Here we have Christ as a criminal and his cross associated with black magic.

This is IMO what Caecilius is implying, the worship of a criminal and his cross suggests the uglier forms of occultism, and MF is indignantly rejecting this.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon · 10-22-2005, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I came across something today that may explain why MF finds the idea so very very shocking.

In the Martyrdom of Pionius Pionius (killed probably around 250 CE) says (The authenticity of this martyrdom is a mater of some dispute IMO it is authentic but in any case it represents ancient attitudes.) Here we have Christ as a criminal and his cross associated with black magic.

This is IMO what Caecilius is implying, the worship of a criminal and his cross suggests the uglier forms of occultism, and MF is indignantly rejecting this.

Andrew Criddle

That's a fantastic find, Andrew! That's a very close match to what M Felix is saying. I hope you don't mind if I use it.

andrewcriddle · 10-22-2005, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's a fantastic find, Andrew! That's a very close match to what M Felix is saying. I hope you don't mind if I use it.

Not at all. Use it by all means.

Andrew Criddle

Ted Hoffman · 10-23-2005, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This seems to require no comment from me, other than to say that I've added you to my 'ignore' list. Deliberate deceit is unacceptable.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

So you can not provide any alleged phililogical argument and you cannot prove there is any consensus on the matter.
No amount of void excuses like accusations of 'deliberate deceit' can camouflage your craven retreat. The infantile inclusion of people who challenge you into your 'ignore list' does nothing to show us that you had a basis for claiming there was scholarly consensus that MF copied Tertullian, nor that this alleged copying can be demonstrated philologically as you earlier claimed.

Ted Hoffman · 10-23-2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The question here is not whether Christianity without a HJ is worth dying for.

The question is whether or not Christianity without any Jesus at all is worth dying for. Or for that matter whether Christianity without any Jesus at all is at any risk of death from the Roman authorities.

Please tell us how you determine the answer to these questions.
Andrew, you notice that you never responded to my question?
You have no basis for deciding what is or is not worth dying for. That renders your whole argument invalid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Persecution of Christianity by the Roman state generally involves the fact that Christians gave worship to Christ in a way that they refused it to the Emperor. See for example Pliny on the Christians or the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

Well, the apologists certainly dont defend themselves from such infractions. They talk about other calumnies brought against them. Looks like Tixeront missed something...

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If MF did not worship Christ in any sense, then either he was deeply misinformed as to what Christians killed by the state had been killed for, or he would probably have had to believe that they brought their deaths upon themselves.

Could you provide a 2nd cent citation that says Christians were killed because they worshipped a flesh-and-blood man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This whole argument seems to involve the suggestion that the pagan spokesman Caecilius knows things about Christianity that the Christian spokesman Octavius doesn't. (And that MF writing up the debate a few years later shares the ignorance of Octavius.)

Andrew Criddle

Therefore?

andrewcriddle · 10-23-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Please tell us how you determine the answer to these questions.
Andrew, you notice that you never responded to my question?
You have no basis for deciding what is or is not worth dying for. That renders your whole argument invalid.

In the ancient world the stubbornness of Christians in choosing to die rather than satisfy the demands of the Roman Magistrates was seen as extraordinary by many.

See for example the comments of Marcus Aurelius and the apparent preparedness of many 'Gnostic' Christians to be flexible on the issue.

From Paul onwards justifications by Christians of Christian martyrdom are typically based on the example of Christ.

Individuals can choose to die for any individual point about which they feel strongly. Group decisions are somewhat different (though not necessarily more rational.)

The collective committal of the mainstream Christian church to the idea that one ought to die rather than give formal worship to the Emperor is difficult to explain outside of their committal to worshipping Christ instead of Caesar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Could you provide a 2nd cent citation that says Christians were killed because they worshipped a flesh-and-blood man.

They were (in many cases) killed because they refused to repudiate Christ. (examples already given)

Their persecutors were not interested in their victims' precise view of Christ (eg as flesh and blood or not).

My point is that Caecilius knows (in a distorted way) that Christians, (or at least many of them), venerate Christ, Roman persecutors eg Pliny know that Christians, (or at least many of them), venerate Christ.

It is most unlikely that Octavius and MF himself could be ignorant of this.

It is I suppose possible that MF knows about this but regards it as a widespread perversion of what he regards as true Christianity, but there is nothing in the Octavius to support this.

(Remember that IIUC we are in agreement that MF did not believe in a mythical Jesus. We are discussing whether it is plausible that he could regard himself as a Christian spokesman without any belief in either a historical or a mythical Jesus.)

Andrew Criddle

Ted Hoffman · 10-24-2005, 12:08 AM

GDon brings up an argument that Doherty has already dealt with. Nevertheless, lets address it. Again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gakusei Don

2. You said that "M Felix finds it contemptible to worship 'a man who suffered death as a criminal'." However, this is not quite accurate: I'm saying that M. Felix finds it contemptible to worship a wicked man who suffered death for committing actual crimes. IMO M. Felix rebutes the charge by saying that this doesn't apply to Christ since, as M Felix points out, "love is more pleasantly given to a very good man".

In short: the pagans are charging Christ as someone who was wicked. M Felix is saying: no, that charge doesn't apply to Christ.

The phrase "love is more pleasantly given to a very good man" is *not* connected to the wicked man. You cannot rummage through the text for a phrase and arbitrarily attempt to connect it to a passage of your choice.

If we read the passage in a straightforward manner, MF is saying "it is wrong to believe that we worship a crucified criminal because it's an idious idea to think that we would worship a man who was a criminal." The acceptance of the idea that he in fact WAS a criminal is implicit in these remarks. *You can't read it any other way*. If Felix wanted to say or imply "you are wrong because he WASN'T a criminal" *he would have to state that*, and there should have been no reason for him not to do so in the interests of clarity.

GDon simply refuses to accept this, and the only justification he offers for reading the latter meaning into the passage is his atomistic focus on the later phrase "love is given to a good man," but Doherty has shown that an analysis of the passage completely disallows such an interpretation of that phrase as being applicable to the crucified man. GDon has utterly ignored Doherty's presentation of this analysis in his[Doherty's] recent rebuttal. This is a tactic that apologists employ all the time: if someone discredits your argument with a good counter-argument and you don't have any way of refuting that counter-argument, just ignore it and go on as if nothing has happened. GDon cannot be allowed to get away with that.

GDon cannot just chop up the text and rearrange it to suit the meaning he desires. He cannot be allowed to repeatedly present falsified arguments without first responding to rebuttals of those same arguments.

GakuseiDon · 10-24-2005, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon brings up an argument that Doherty has already dealt with.

Heheh. Just for fun, I'll quote from Doherty's rebuttal at the end of this post, so people can judge for themselves how well Doherty deals with it (if they can get through the lantana of logic!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

The phrase "love is more pleasantly given to a very good man" is *not* connected to the wicked man. You cannot rummage through the text for a phrase and arbitrarily attempt to connect it to a passage of your choice.

Heh? It's part of the very passage where M Felix refutes the charge that the crucified man was a malefactor!!! Whether or not it has the meaning that I suggest, it HAS to be connected to that charge. There is no way around it, Ted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

If we read the passage in a straightforward manner, MF is saying "it is wrong to believe that we worship a crucified criminal because it's an idious idea to think that we would worship a man who was a criminal." The acceptance of the idea that he in fact WAS a criminal is implicit in these remarks. *You can't read it any other way*.

Ted, I agree! Both you and Doherty have misread both me and M Felix. Let's clear this up right now, so we can continue on the same page:

1. Did Christians regard Christ as an earthly being? (Keep in mind Tertullian's statement: "mortal beings (come) from mortals, earthly ones from earthly"). The answer HAS to be "NO". So M Felix is ORTHODOX here.

2. Did Christians believe that Christ died as a criminal? The answer is "YES". See Andrew's find in the Martyrdom of Pionius above.

3. Did Christians believe that Christ died because he committed wicked crimes? The answer is "NO".

Can we start by agreeing on these points?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

If Felix wanted to say or imply "you are wrong because he WASN'T a criminal" *he would have to state that*, and there should have been no reason for him not to do so in the interests of clarity.

M Felix is saying that the crucified man wasn't wicked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

GDon simply refuses to accept this, and the only justification he offers for reading the latter meaning into the passage is his atomistic focus on the later phrase "love is given to a good man," but Doherty has shown that an analysis of the passage completely disallows such an interpretation of that phrase as being applicable to the crucified man. GDon has utterly ignored Doherty's presentation of this analysis in his[Doherty's] recent rebuttal. This is a tactic that apologists employ all the time: if someone discredits your argument with a good counter-argument and you don't have any way of refuting that counter-argument, just ignore it and go on as if nothing has happened. GDon cannot be allowed to get away with that.

GDon cannot just chop up the text and rearrange it to suit the meaning he desires. He cannot be allowed to repeatedly present falsified arguments without first responding to rebuttals of those same arguments.

Once you've answered the questions above, we will be on the same page I think.

I'll reproduce a part of Doherty's argument, so people here can see Doherty's presention of this analysis (his webpage has better formatting and may be easier to read: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon-2.htm )

A couple of things to keep in mind:

1. The charge against the Christians is the type of person they are worshipping. Christians are wicked because they worshipped a wicked man. I suggest that M Felix ends the passage discussing "false flattery" and how "love and honor are given to good men" to tie back to the charge, as a reflexion on that charge.
2. Doherty says that if M Felix wished to show that Caecilius' accusation was misguided, he could have done it by stating that the crucified man in question was not a criminal. But the problem here is that he couldn't. Again, I point back to Pionius's statements on Christ as criminal. M Felix's statements don't deny that the crucified man was a criminal, merely that he was wicked.

So, here is Doherty's rebuttal on this section that Ted thinks is so convincing:

Quote:

[M Felix]"... 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..."
. . . .

"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. "Moreover, a false flattery disgracefully caresses princes and kings, not as great and chosen men, as is just, but as gods; whereas honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man."

I shouldn't need to belabor the point that the bare response Felix gives to the accusation ("For in that...to be believed God") contains in itself none of the meaning GDon would like to give it. As I said earlier, it simply says that the pagans are wrong to think that a criminal deserves to be worshiped as a god, or that a mortal is capable of being worshiped as a god. The sentence itself refers to the crucified man as a mortal and a criminal, and the next sentence is equally negative, calling anyone who rests his hope on such a mortal, especially one who dies, "miserable." GDon tacitly acknowledges this, and relies for his alleged meaning on what is subsequently said and what is the claimed implication of those subsequent remarks for the crucified man. The first point to be made is that if Felix wanted to counter the negative effect of what he has said up to this point, if he wished to show that Caecilius' accusation was erroneous and misguided, he could have done it quite plainly, simply by stating that the crucified man in question was not a criminal, and was not a mortal but in fact a god. He did not have to do it by a process that is so obscure as to be unintelligible, something demonstrated by the fact that GDon's (not to mention others') 'explanation' of the passage is also obscure and almost unintelligible.

Part of the problem is in translation, chiefly in the link between the first two sentences above and the following remarks on the Egyptians. One of the most difficult and idiomatic aspects of a language is in the use of words that serve conjunctive purposes. They are crucial to understanding the relation between one thought and another. In this passage, the sentence introducing the Egyptians begins with: "Aegyptii sane hominem sibi quem colant eligunt": The ANF (used by GDon) translates: "The Egyptians certainly choose out a man for themselves whom they may worship." The Latin "sane" is literally: "certainly, very much so." But what significance does it have? How does it relate what follows to what comes before? I cannot speak for how an ancient Roman would have perceived the writer's intended meaning (neither I nor my Latin training are close enough to that time), but for modern readers, I suggest that the meaning is anything but lucid when one relies simply on the Latin words. In sticking to a literal path, the ANF hardly throws clear light on the matter. Nor does Freese's translation [The Octavius of Minucius Felix], which also uses "certainly." G. W. Clarke [Ancient Christian Writers #39] is a little more innovative and offers: "And I know for a fact that people in Egypt choose a man..." But try reading this after the preceding sentences and see whether it clarifies the relationship between the two, between the declaration that the pagans are wrong about Christians worshiping a crucified mortal and the account of the Egyptians who also worship a man. For me, it does not. There is one translation, however, which I think gets us on an intelligible track, the one in The Fathers of the Church, v.10 (I don't have the specific translator's name). I will give this translation with that of the preceding two sentences (and add a subsequent conjunction):

"Moreover, 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. I grant you that the Egyptians choose a man for their worship....Yet..."

Here, the conjunctive elements make things intelligible, and do not require twisting any statement into a meaning the words themselves don't have. Felix is saying (I'm paraphrasing): 'please do not accuse us of worshiping a crucified man who was a criminal ("malefactor") and a mortal, for no criminal deserves to be so worshiped, nor could (such) a mortal manage to get himself regarded as a god. In fact, anyone who places that kind of hope in a mortal is pitiable, since his hope will perish with the mortal's death.' Thus far no qualification, no softening of the negative imagery, is offered. Octavius' words are a straightforward condemnation of the ideas expressed in the accusation. Then he says (again paraphrasing), 'now I grant you that the Egyptians do indulge in such a thing, namely that they worship a man as a god...' This thought is given in contrast with what he has just expressed disapproval of. He has condemned what the Christians are being accused of, but then allows ("I grant you...") that the Egyptians do this very thing. But what is his verdict on what the Egyptians are doing? For his comments about the Egyptians to have any possible reflection back on his remarks about the crucified man in a way that would reverse the latter's negativity, in a way that would make it OK to worship a crucified man (let alone to regard him as a god rather than a mortal), Felix would at the very least have to be approving of what the Egyptians do. Yet he is the direct opposite. Look at what he actually says, and here I'll repeat that part of the passage using the Fathers translation:

"I grant you that the Egyptians choose a man for their worship; they propitiate only him, they consult him on all matters, they slay sacrificial victims in his honor. Yet, though he is a god in the eyes of others, in his own he is certainly a man, whether he likes it or not, for he does not deceive his own consciousness, whatever he does to that of others. The same applies to princes and kings, who are not hailed as great and outstanding men, as would be proper, but overwhelmed with flatteries falsely praising them as gods; whereas, honor would be the most fitting tribute to a man of distinction, and affection the greatest comfort to a benefactor [or, "love...to a good man" as in GDon's ANF translation]."

This passage must illustrate the point Felix is trying to make in regard to the crucified man, otherwise he would not include it. It would make no sense if the two sentiments did not agree. But they do: he states disapproval of the worship of a crucified man, and disapproval of the Egyptian practice of treating a man as a god, as well as of deifying kings and princes. He declares the man of the Egyptians (some judge that the reference is to the figure of Anubis) to have been a mortal, even if he has deceived the Egyptians into regarding him as a god, and makes it clear that he disapproves of the whole practice of turning men into gods. How can such a sentiment possibly serve to reverse the effect of Felix's negative declaration about the crucified man of the Christians? Rather, it's supportive, because the idea of condemning the turning of a mortal into a god is common between them both. Felix goes on to another—parallel—idea, that kings and princes should not be made more of than they actually are or deserve: they should not be "falsely prais[ed] as gods" but simply "hailed as great and outstanding men." This idea is again hardly supportive of reading the opposite meaning into Felix's remarks about the crucified man, but rather supports once more the condemnation which is clearly there, that Christians should not be accused of turning a man into a god. How could Felix be implying with favor that Christians regarded the crucified man as more than a mortal when he is openly vilifying such a practice by the Egyptians?

Finally, Felix enlarges on his recommendation of how good princes and kings should be treated (that is, hail them as outstanding men, but don't deify them), by saying that a man of distinction—"an illustrious man" in the ANF—should be accorded honor, and that a benefactor—"a good man" in the ANF—should be given affection, or love. This statement has nothing whatever to do with the Christian situation; it is a further way of expressing what he has just said about princes and kings. What it does do is make it impossible to interpret the remarks about the Christian situation in a way that is contrary to the plain words, for Felix is saying that love and honor are to be given to a man, that these are the fitting reactions to good men. Nor can one take the simple phrase itself, that "love is given to a good man," and declare that it is meant to reflect back onto the crucified man when no such progression of ideas can be traced through the passage. The phrase cannot serve to reverse Felix's adamant condemnation of Caecilus for accusing Christians of worshiping a criminal and a mortal because the connective tissue simply isn't there. Thus, the atomistic usage for which GDon is trying to co-opt this statement is unworkable. For any reader to perceive such an obscure meaning and effect, if it were intended, would be nothing short of clairvoyant. When one adds the context of the phrase, namely how one ought to treat princes and kings, we would need to supplement clairvoyance with a course in modern apologetics.

Of course, there is a corollary to all this. Not only has a deconstruction of the passage revealed that the remarks concerning the Egyptians cannot possibly support the wishful meaning that commentators have traditionally tried to force on Felix's words, the result is the opposite: those remarks clearly demonstrate that the straightforward negative reading of Felix's response is indeed the right one, despite the refusal of centuries to accept it. The two elements of the passage, the crucified man assertion and its elucidation in the Egyptian example, are mutually supportive and explanatory. This makes it a true smoking gun, for the author of this apology is rejecting the validity or acceptability of the worship of a crucified man as a proper part of the Christian faith. This is not to say he is denying the historicity of such a man or event; in fact, it indicates that some circles of the faith known to pagans held the viewpoint he is rejecting (a situation hardly surprising, as we know it existed by the middle of the 2nd century). But this does not provide any necessary support for that man or event being historical. On the contrary, if an apologist could dismiss what orthodoxy now regards as the central element of the Christian movement, this would virtually necessitate a rejection of the notion that the religion could have grown out of such an event or initial interpretation of it. In other words, the Christian Jesus could never have existed.

Ted Hoffman · 10-24-2005, 03:05 AM

MF is talking about how Egyptians should respond to good and illustrious people and he is saying its ok to honour and love them people but not to worship them. He is saying gods are not men. And that irrespective of how good or illustrious a man is, the best we can do is honour them or love them, not worship them as they did their euhemerized men.
You are clearly incorrect to attribute his comments to Jesus.

I post below the passage from MF that shows MF had moved on from the wicked man who suffered on the cross and was talking about the Egyptian gods and what to worship and what not to worship. Note that I am citing the passage without any break in between.

Here is the passage:

Quote:

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. "Moreover, a false flattery disgracefully caresses princes and kings, not as great and chosen men, as is just, but as gods; whereas honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man. Thus they invoke their deity, they supplicate their images, they implore their Genius, that is, their demon; and it is safer to swear falsely by the genius of Jupiter than by that of a king. Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for.

Ted Hoffman · 10-24-2005, 03:11 AM

Quote:

1. Did Christians regard Christ as an earthly being? (Keep in mind Tertullian's statement: "mortal beings (come) from mortals, earthly ones from earthly"). The answer HAS to be "NO". So M Felix is ORTHODOX here.

Tertullian is not MF. MF is not Christians. Marcion was a Christian yet believed Jesus presence on earth was an illusion.
Did all Christians therefore believe that the presence of Jesus on earth was an illusion?

Quote:

2. Did Christians believe that Christ died as a criminal? The answer is "YES". See Andrew's find in the Martyrdom of Pionius above.

MF is not Christians.

Quote:

3. Did Christians believe that Christ died because he committed wicked crimes? The answer is "NO".

MF is not Christians.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.