Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 04-16-2004, 06:19 PM

Doherty regards Minucius Felix as his 'smoking gun'. In this post, I want to look at probably his strongest point on his The Second Century Apologists website.

Doherty writes:

Quote:

Much of Octavius' argument is devoted to countering the calumnies against Christians which Caecilius, representing general pagan opinion, enumerates: everything from debauchery to the devouring of infants, to Christian secrecy and hopes for the world's fiery destruction.

But here is where it gets interesting. For no other apologist but Justin has voiced and dealt with one particular accusation which the writer puts into the mouth of Caecilius. The list of calumnies in chapter 9 runs like this (partly paraphrased):

"This abominable congregation should be rooted out . . . a religion of lust and fornication. They reverence the head of an ass . . . even the genitals of their priests . . . . And some say that the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross; these are fitting altars for such depraved people, and they worship what they deserve . . . . Also, during initiations they slay and dismember an infant and drink its blood . . . at their ritual feasts they indulge in shameless copulation."

Remember that a Christian is composing this passage. (The sentence in italics is translated in full.) He has included the central element and figure of the Christian faith, the person and crucifixion of Jesus, within a litany of ridiculous and unspeakable calumnies leveled against his religion—with no indication, by his language or tone, that this reference to a crucified man is to be regarded as in any way different from the rest of the items: disreputable accusations which need to be refuted. Could a Christian author who believed in a crucified Jesus and his divinity really have been capable of this manner of presentation?

The sentence in italics in the original Latin is:

"Et qui hominem summo supplicio pro facinore punitum et crucis ligna feralia eorum caerimonias fabulatur, congruentia perditis sceleratisque tribuit altaria, ut id colant quod merentur".

Doherty translates this as:

"And some say that the objects of their worship include a man who suffered death as a criminal, as well as the wretched wood of his cross; these are fitting altars for such depraved people, and they worship what they deserve".

This does seem to be a problem for a HJer, as Christians do indeed worship a man (ignoring for a moment that Christians believe that man to be God) who suffered death as a criminal.

However, the Roberts-Donaldson English translation in earlychristianwritings is:

"and 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".

This, of course, gives a different picture. While no Christian would deny that Jesus was crucified as a criminal, how many would say that He was crucified "for his wickedness"? This is not just saying that He was crucified (presumably unjustly) as a criminal, but that He WAS a criminal.

Doherty's translation is most 'fortunate' for him. However, the Roberts-Donaldson translation fits better in the context of the passage, which lists charges against the Christians of Mincius Felix's time. In this case, Christians are wicked because their founder was wicked.

My Latin is virtually non-existent, so any comments on the above translations (either pro or con) are welcome. If my comments on the translations are unreasonable, please let us know.

Octavius's reply to the charge supports the Roberts-Donaldson translation:

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.

Octavius doesn't seem to be denying that there was a crucifixion, but that a criminal didn't deserve to be believed a God. It is a strange qualification to make if he didn't believe he was worshipping someone who was crucified at all. In fact, Octavius makes it clear that someone worshipped thusly would not only be not a criminal, but not an earthly being as well.

Octavius continues on, not by pointing out that these events occured in a heavenly realm anyway, but by comparing how other men are worshipped as gods:

Quote:

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. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.

Why would a Christian deny that they worshipped crosses? In this case, the answer is clear: the charge Octavius was defending against was that Christians worship actual crosses:

"and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men"...

Note that, having just said that Christians "neither worship nor wish for" crosses, Octavius then gives a defence of the shape of the cross. It would be a strange thing to do if Octavius was denying that Christians used crosses at all.

As I mentioned in my Tertullian thread, there is a relationship between Minucius Felix and Tertullian's Apology and Ad nationes. Many of the points raised in Minucius Felix are also covered in those works. More significantly, the subjects not raised in Minucius Felix that Doherty believes should be there (e.g. the names "Jesus" and "Christ", the historical details about the crucifixion), are also not raised in Ad nationes.

Doherty raises some other points on Minucius Felix that I haven't covered here, as I wanted to concentrate on the passages above. The other points are covered in an article on the Tektonics Apologetics website (reference below).

--------------------

1. Earl Doherty, The Second Century Apologists
2. Tertullian, Apology
3. Tertullian, Ad nationes
4. Online Resources for Tertullian
5. Minucius Felix, Octavius by Minucius Felix
6. Tektonics, No Apologies; Or, The Dissolving of the Second Century

Layman · 04-16-2004, 09:24 PM

Another great post, GD.

Does Doherty even discuss the fact that real scholars translate it differently than he does?

Taking a well regarded translation together with the excellent context discussion you provide, it seems Doherty's point fails.

rlogan · 04-16-2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

This, of course, gives a different picture.

Not to me.

Pretty straightforward under both translations. They aren't worhiping the superhero that leaps tall buildings in a single bound.

They got this miserable wretch instead.

You're quibbling over "wicked" vs. "criminal" when the whole context is either one of these words vs. "superhero".

"wicked" vs. superhero.

"criminal" vs. superhero.

GakuseiDon · 04-16-2004, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Not to me.

Pretty straightforward under both translations. They aren't worhiping the superhero that leaps tall buildings in a single bound.

They got this miserable wretch instead.

You're quibbling over "wicked" vs. "criminal" when the whole context is either one of these words vs. "superhero".

"wicked" vs. superhero.

"criminal" vs. superhero.

Reread the quote from Doherty:

He has included the central element and figure of the Christian faith, the person and crucifixion of Jesus, within a litany of ridiculous and unspeakable calumnies leveled against his religion—with no indication, by his language or tone, that this reference to a crucified man is to be regarded as in any way different from the rest of the items: disreputable accusations which need to be refuted. Could a Christian author who believed in a crucified Jesus and his divinity really have been capable of this manner of presentation?

I would say: yes, if the charge was that the crucified Jesus was crucified due to His wickedness. "Jesus was crucified as a criminal" and "Jesus was crucified for His wickedness" are quite different. Which one of those would a Christian be more inclined to defend?

GakuseiDon · 04-16-2004, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Another great post, GD.

Does Doherty even discuss the fact that real scholars translate it differently than he does?

Taking a well regarded translation together with the excellent context discussion you provide, it seems Doherty's point fails.

Thanks, Layman. Doherty gives no source for the translation, so I assume that he translated this himself.

But am I being unfair to Doherty? I would still like someone to examine the Latin sentence in question, and give me their opinion on it, either pro or con. (Thanks to the two people earlier who gave some validation to the Roberts-Donaldson translation in the other thread).

Toto · 04-17-2004, 12:10 AM

I don't see the big difference in the translations - "Died as a criminal" or "punished for his crimes" or "punished for his wickedness". You asked about it here and got the translation "a man punished by death for his crimes." You are picking on a minor point that does not make any difference to the conclusion.

Doherty's point on this is later in the section, where he compares Minucius to a later apologist Arnobius (c. 300):

Quote:

Where is the necessary qualification that no Christian could surely have remained silent on? Where is the saving defence that in fact this crucified man was not a mortal, but was indeed God? Some claim that this is what Minucius is implying, but such an implication is so opaque, it can only be derived from reading it into the text. Octavius' words certainly do not contain it, although they do imply that the writer knows of some Christians who believe such things, but he has no sympathy with them.

The translator of this work in the 19th century collection of Ante-Nicene Fathers [the hard copy book inserts here "on which my own translations are based"] (vol. IV, p.191) includes the following sentence in his summary preface at the head of chapter 29: "For they believe not only that he was innocent, but with reason that he was God." Such an idea is nowhere to be found in the text, and the context of the charge and its response cannot reasonably be said to imply it. Nor do the other things Minucius says which scorn different aspects of the Christian faith (such as gods being born in the present time or performing miracles) allow us to draw such an implication. To verse 2 the translator offers this wishful footnote: "A reverent allusion to the Crucified, believed in and worshiped as God." What one cannot believe is missing, one will read into the text, no matter what.

A more recent commentator, G. W. Clarke (Ancient Christian Writers #39, 1949) makes this observation in an end note: "A remarkable avoidance of any mention of the Incarnation. Indeed, so anxious is Minucius Felix to avoid admitting such a difficult doctrine that he gives the appearance of denying it." Indeed he does. And while Clarke compares this to Arnobius' "coyness" on the same topic, this later (c.300) Christian apologist was in no way reluctant or dishonest in admitting it, even though he lived at a time of greater persecution. "We worship one who was born a man. What then? Do you worship no one who was born a man? . . . But he died nailed to the cross. So what? Neither does the kind and disgrace of the death change his words or deeds." (Against the Heathen, I.37 & 40).

. . .

The survival of this document, with its out-and-out dismissal of the central tenets of Christianity, is perhaps surprising, but it was no doubt possible only because a certain veiled ambiguity could be read into a verse like 29:2 above, and by letting this perception override the derogatory tone and jarring silence of the passage and document as a whole. Baylis has labelled 29:2 "oblique," but Minucius' stark language rules out any such escape route. This scholar, too, reads into Minucius' defense something which is not evidently there: "Yes, we adore one who was crucified, but he is neither a criminal nor a mere man."

GD says:

Quote:

Why would a Christian deny that they worshipped crosses? In this case, the answer is clear: the charge Octavius was defending against was that Christians worship actual crosses:

This may be clear to you, but I don't think so. Doherty says of that passage, "There is not a hint that for Minucius the cross bears any sacred significance or requires defending in a Christian context."

Semblance · 04-17-2004, 12:41 AM

Octavius doesn't seem to be denying that there was a crucifixion...

Where does he defend the crucifixion? This would clearly be expected if a human Jesus generated the movement. As Doherty pointed out, later commentators took pains to do exactly that because of the nature of the charges in this document. Pointing to other documents that don't mention the crucifixion doesn't address the problem here.

In this case, Christians are wicked because their founder was wicked.

You left out the death part. A clearer paraphrase would be "Christians are wicked because their founder was put to death for being wicked." Now where is the clarification from Octavius that later commentators felt needed to be said?

In fact, Octavius makes it clear that someone worshipped thusly would not only be not a criminal, but not an earthly being as well.

Where does Octavius "make this clear"? Are you reading that into this sentence?

Quote:

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.

GakuseiDon · 04-17-2004, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't see the big difference in the translations - "Died as a criminal" or "punished for his crimes" or "punished for his wickedness". You asked about it here and got the translation "a man punished by death for his crimes." You are picking on a minor point that does not make any difference to the conclusion.

Toto, looking at these 3 sentences:

"Jesus died as a criminal"
"Jesus punished for his crimes"
"Jesus punished for his wickedness?

Don't you think there is a difference, from a Christian perspective?

This is a charge being made against Christianity that Octavius feels compelled to defend. If you look at it, the charge is that Christians were wicked because the founder was wicked. What, then, is Doherty's point when he asks "could a Christian author who believed in a crucified Jesus and his divinity really have been capable of this manner of presentation"? Why wouldn't a Christian author defend any of the three charges you listed?

Quote:

Doherty's point on this is later in the section, where he compares Minucius to a later apologist Arnobius (c. 300)

A more natural comparison is with Tertullian's Ad nationes, which covers many of the same points as Octavius, and is noteable for not covering the things that the Minucius Felix doesn't cover, i.e. the crucifixion, "Jesus" and "Christ". Yet Tertullian was a HJer who wasn't averse to giving explicit details in his Apology, published in the same year.

I suggest the reason was that they were for the same type of audience.

Quote:

This may be clear to you, but I don't think so. Doherty says of that passage, "There is not a hint that for Minucius the cross bears any sacred significance or requires defending in a Christian context."

Then why does Octavius defend the shape of the cross, comparing it to "when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched" for example?

Again, I refer you to Tertullian, who says the same thing: From Ad nationes

Quote:

As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure. Only, whilst with you the figure is a human one, with us the wood is its own figure. Never mind for the present what is the shape, provided the material is the same: the form, too, is of no importance, if so be it be the actual body of a god. If, however, there arises a question of difference on this point what, (let me ask,) is the difference between the Athenian Pallas, or the Pharian Ceres, and wood formed into a cross, when each is represented by a rough stock, without form, and by the merest rudiment of a statue of unformed wood? Every piece of timber which is fixed in the ground in an erect position is a part of a cross, and indeed the greater portion of its mass. But an entire cross is attributed to us, with its transverse beam, of course, and its projecting seat. Now you have the less to excuse you, for you dedicate to religion only a mutilated imperfect piece of wood, while others consecrate to the sacred purpose a complete structure. The truth, however, after all is, that your religion is all cross, as I shall show. You are indeed unaware that your gods in their origin have proceeded from this hated cross. Now, every image, whether carved out of wood or stone, or molten in metal, or produced out of any other richer material, must needs have had plastic hands engaged in its formation. Well, then, this modeller, before he did anything else, hit upon the form of a wooden cross, because even our own body assumes as its natural position the latent and concealed outline of a cross.

Toto · 04-17-2004, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Toto, looking at these 3 sentences:

"Jesus died as a criminal"
"Jesus punished for his crimes"
"Jesus punished for his wickedness?

Don't you think there is a difference, from a Christian perspective?

No. You are trying to find some distinction that is not there, and is not the basis of Doherty's analysis in any case. "Died as a criminal" has the necessary implication of dying because of alleged crimes, or dying in a shameful manner.

Quote:

This is a charge being made against Christianity that Octavius feels compelled to defend. If you look at it, the charge is that Christians were wicked because the founder was wicked. What, then, is Doherty's point when he asks "could a Christian author who believed in a crucified Jesus and his divinity really have been capable of this manner of presentation"? Why wouldn't a Christian author defend any of the three charges you listed?

Why didn't Minucius claim that Jesus was innocent, or that he survived the crucifixion, or that he rose from the dead, or any of the usual Christian explanations? Why didn't MF defend Christianity in the way that Arnobius did?

Quote:

A more natural comparison is with Tertullian's Ad nationes, which covers many of the same points as Octavius, and is noteable for not covering the things that the Minucius Felix doesn't cover, i.e. the crucifixion, "Jesus" and "Christ". Yet Tertullian was a HJer who wasn't averse to giving explicit details in his Apology, published in the same year.

You keep repeating this, as if everyone agrees that Tertullian was an HJ believer. Let's put aside for now the fact that you have not clearly shown what Tertullian thought about a HJ. You seem to be implying that since one alleged HJ believer wrote one piece of work that did not mention the historical Jesus (and other pieces that did), that another author who does not mention the historical Jesus must also believe in him. I don't see how this follows.

Quote:

[i]. . .Then why does Octavius defend the shape of the cross, comparing it to "when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched" for example?

Again, I refer you to Tertullian, who says the same thing: From Ad nationes

How does this help your case? The cross was a symbol used by many religious groups. Minucius does not seem to connect that symbol to a recent crucifixion of a godman.

Steven Carr · 04-17-2004, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Thanks, Layman. Doherty gives no source for the translation, so I assume that he translated this himself.

The lecturer at Penn State has the following
'There are also stories about the objects of their veneration: they are said to be a man who was punished with death as a criminal and the fell wood of his cross, thus providing suitable liturgy for the depraved fiends: they worship what they deserve.'

http://jessica.banks.net.nz/RLST124SP04SB1.htm

Personally, I can't see any huge difference between the accusation that Jesus was killed as a criminal, or that he was killed for his wickedness.

Hengel, hardly a liberal, writes '"To say that their ceremonies centre on a man put to death for his crime and on the fatal wood of the cross is to assign to these abandoned wretches sanctuaries which are appropriate to them and the kind of worship they deserve." [In Hengel, Crucifixion, 3, citing Caecilius in Minucius Felix’ dialogue Octavius 9.4] according to
http://www.faithtacoma.org/sermons/G...alatians31.htm

Perhaps Hengel is not a real scholar?

'To say that their ceremonies centre on a man put to death for his crime and on the fatal wood of the cross, is to assign to these abandoned wretches sanctuaries which are appropriate to them and the kind of worship they deserve."'

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/9396.htm - John Mark ministries (perhaps secret Doherty sympathisers)

'To say that a malefactor put to death for his crimes, the wood of the death-dealing cross, are objects of their veneration is to assign fitting altars to be abandoned wretches and the kind of worship they deserve.

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/aca.../Octavius.html

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

04-16-2004, 09:24 PM	#2
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Another great post, GD. Does Doherty even discuss the fact that real scholars translate it differently than he does? Taking a well regarded translation together with the excellent context discussion you provide, it seems Doherty's point fails.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.