EarlDoherty

When there are too many contributors to a thread ranged against you, and one doesn’t have a lot of time to devote to addressing their posts, one can soon lose control over what’s going on, so if my responses don’t cover every aspect of the arguments being made, I hope people will understand. Krosero complains that I didn’t address every aspect of his earlier post, but that’s going to be inevitable. Let’s see if I can pick up a few things here from a day or two ago so that I don’t get too far behind.

He asked why Felix didn’t appeal to an “irrefutable argument�. Why not say (and I’m paraphrasing from memory) to Caecilius that he was wrong because his Christ was not a man, he was never on earth, that he was a mythical Christ who lived in the supernatural world. I will assume that Krosero realized from my last post that this was based on a false premise, that Felix had a mythical Christ of the Pauline variety. Since I think it’s pretty certain that he did not, but probably subscribed to a Logos religion, he would consequently have had no reason to appeal to that argument in response to Caecilius.

Perhaps Krosero also realized a parallel to my own position. Krosero (even if on the wrong premise) clearly realizes the problem when a writer defending his faith does not appeal to the obvious “irrefutable argument� that should be available to him. I would ask him to apply that principle to the situation from my point of view. If Felix had orthodox views about a crucified man being a god and a proper object for Christian worship, why didn’t he use the “irrefutable argument�: namely, that this man was not a criminal and not a mortal, stating it clearly. That should have settled the matter as far as Caecilius’ accusation was concerned. Yet he did not. He says:

But we are still going around in circles here. Krosero asks why he makes the response he does, and answers that he “needs to talk� about the fact that this man wasn’t a true criminal and that he wasn’t a true earthly being. But if that is his need, why doesn’t he fill it? Why doesn’t he come out and say that very thing? Why doesn’t he appeal to such an “irrefutable argument�? What he actually says doesn’t do that. This is what I can’t seem to get across to the objectors. His response, if you only look at the text, is to heap scorn on the idea that Christians worship such a man and his cross. Nothing more. Everything else, all those implications you claim are there, are simply being read into it.

Krosero has also gone into a lot of detailed argument based on assumptions about what Felix believed, but as I say, we are unsure of just exactly what he believed. We don’t know what his attitude was toward the “crucified man� Caecilius has mentioned. Did he think Caecilius (or the pagan comments represented by the words Felix has put in his mouth) was referring to an actual historical man, or only to a story about a man? Did Felix have an opinion, let alone definite knowledge, as to whether this man had actually lived, or did he not know one way or another? Did Felix know the Gospels? Did he think that pagans’ accusations were based on the Gospels, or on independent historical tradition (whether accurate or not)? We simply know too little about what is going on in Felix’s mind. All we do know, as Ted Hoffman has pointed it, is what he says in the document itself. And if we divorce that from all other assumptions that are being read into it, what he says is that Caecilius is wrong. We do not reverence a crucified criminal and his cross because a criminal does not deserve such worship, and it is foolish to base hope on a dead mortal. And he follows it up, in regard both to the man and to the cross with comments and comparisons which make it clear that he, or the circles he represents, do not worship either. Everything else is padding which is being brought to text.

Let’s expand on all this by looking at a few of Krosero’s specific remarks:

As I said, we don’t know precisely whether Felix thought the man in question had really existed or not, whether he was a man in a story or a man in presumed history. And if he had a Logos, this would not of itself rule out the existence of the man in question. So he can’t say the thing that you claim “he only needs to say� because he wasn’t in a position to know that such a criminal/earthly being did not exist. In any case, the more objectionable element for Felix was to be accused of worshiping a reputed criminal. That is the element he is going to feel compelled to deny, not get into some discussion about whether the man existed or not. That wouldn’t solve the accusation.

Let’s try one of my patented anologies. Caecilius’ says, it is rumored that in a neighboring town, a Christian bishop regularly beats his wife, which shows how despicable Christians are. Octavius is not familiar with the bishop himself, and does not know first-hand whether he even has a wife. Is he going to argue over whether she exists or not, or whether the woman in question is in fact his sister, or a deaconess? Of course not. What will offend him is the nature of the accusation itself, the beating aspect. He will defend Christian integrity by a reaction like this: you are wrong to think that a good Christian bishop would beat a woman. That’s the crux of the matter. He is simply denying that they do.

You are drawing out all sorts of assumptions and implications that are completely unnecessary. Who knows what the story said, or whether Felix/Caecilius is referring to a story or (unfounded) historical tradition? Caecilius’ accusation is stating that the man was crucified for a crime, therefore the plain meaning is that he was a criminal. Octavius is responding to that plain statement. (It is a red herring for Don to suggest that the words do not actually say he was guilty of the crime. In the absence of any qualification, anything that would reverse the plain meaning, the plain meaning has to be accepted: referring to a man who was crucified for his crimes is to assume and intend the meaning that he was a criminal.)

Because he’s offended at the accusation itself. He is trying to show how outlandish such an idea is. And you’re overlooking something else which is staring us all right in the face. This response to the crucified man accusation is in exact parallel to how he responds to the other accusations it has been lumped with.

What they have in common is that they are all offensive, and that he responds to them all in the same way—from the point of view of their offensiveness. In regard to worshiping the ass’s head: “Who is such a fool as to worship this? Who is so much more foolish as to believe that it is an object of worship?� This is idea for idea the precise same response he gives to the accusation of worshiping a crucified man and his cross. Is anyone going to allege that Felix is saying that the ass really wasn’t an ass, the ass didn’t exist, that the ass actually deserved worship? He even goes on to give counter-accusations that the pagans worship an ass’s head, trying to turn the tables on them, which can only make sense if he is agreeing with the implicit reprehensibility of worshiping an ass’s head. This is in exact parallel to the examples he gives about the Egyptians following his response about the crucified man. If you wouldn’t think of trying to reverse Felix’s clear attitude toward the ass’s head accusation, on what grounds do you think you can reverse Felix’s equally clear attitude toward the crucified man and cross accusation? In the text itself, there are no better grounds for doing the latter than the former.

This commonality of approach toward the two accusations, the commonality of terminology, the similar sequence of ideas in how the answer is phrased, is yet another indicator that he means exactly the same thing in regard to both accusations. He combines the two in the same list because he has the same attitude toward both, the same method of countering the accusations. In both cases he is responding to the offensiveness of the accusations.

But it’s not just these two. He does the same with the accusation about worshiping the priests’ genitals. He turns the accusation against the pagans and compares it to obscene practices of their own. He does the same for the accusation about slaughtering an infant and drinking its blood. He responds to the offensiveness of the accusation, and heaps scorn on the accusation itself. I’m going to juxtapose certain statements:

First:

“Do you think it possible that so tender and so tiny a body could be the object of fatal wounds? That anyone would murder a babe, hardly brought into the world, and shed and sip that infant blood?� And “Who is such a fool as to worship this [an ass’s head]? Who is so much more foolish as to believe that it is an object of worship?�

with

“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.�

Second:

“You offer up and worship the heads of oxen and of wethers, and you dedicate gods mingled also of a goat and a man…� And, “In fact, it is among you that I see newly-begotten sons at times exposed to wild beasts and birds, or dispatched by the violent death of strangulation.� (And—well, no translation had the courage to translate the passage about the way the pagans themselves emulate the accusation about the priests’ genitals, either cutting it out entirely or leaving it in the Latin original.)

with

(paraphrasing) In fact, the Egyptians choose a man for worship, but though others regard him as a god, he is not and doesn’t deceive himself, nor should kings and princes be worshiped as gods, but if they are good should only be accorded love and honor.

IN ALL THESE CASES, Felix is responding to the accusations in exactly the same way. He treats them as offensive. He asks how the pagan can think Christians would do such things. He turns the tables and shows how the pagans do exactly the same, and the doing of that same is something he condemns. He follows the same thought pattern of response in all cases. And he has deliberately chosen to include them all in the same list. And yet it is claimed that in one of those cases, the spirit, the meaning, the writer’s attitude, is the precise opposite to all the rest.

What more do we need to be able to recognize that all these things, all these accusations, all these “indecencies� as Felix blatantly calls them, are viewed in the same light by Felix himself?

I have to end here, as it’s time for bed after a long day, and I have an early morning ahead. I’ll see if I can pick up further tomorrow evening or Friday.

Ted Hoffman

Earl, I think you have nailed it. Good work. The following statement captures it all:
krosero's previous posts make several wishful attempts to go beyond what Felix writes, including appealing to the gospels and calling the wicked man Christ (something MF never does). These flailings dont help us understand what Felix meant.

krosero

I will understand if you can’t cover every aspect. A clarification: I did not complain that you didn’t address “every aspect� of my earlier post. I know that’s taking you literally, but I’m doing so because it’s important to be clear what we’re expecting of each other. I would not expect anyone to cover even a sizeable portion of what I write. I did point out that in your long essay you had not found time to address any specific part of my textual analysis of Felix, or directly given an answer to one of my questions. That was a complaint, yes.

Your paraphrase of my argument is incorrect; my premise was not Pauline mythicism. I was trying to cover any kind of worship that didn’t revere a historical criminal. So I wrote: “Our Christ could never have been a human, much less a criminal….We worship something that is not extinct.� My argument was, why doesn’t he say that? But as you point out:

You’re right, I did see the parallel between our two positions, which is one reason I don’t think I can stand on my first disproof, which depends on Felix’s failure to spell out what his Christ is.

One thing, though: we have parallel arguments using silence. In whatever model we choose, Felix has not been explicit about what his Christ is (he says neither “Christ� nor “Logos�). So what does this silence prove, in either case? My second disproof, at any rate, does not depend on Felix’s silence.

I have not made these assumptions. Felix may or may not have known the gospels, but I did presume that if Caecilius was talking about Christians revering a crucified man, then some fire has caused this smoke: perhaps the story of Paul’s mythical Jesus Christ, or the Gospels, but something. Perhaps some Gnostic form of the crucifixion story. So yes, I’ve been working on the premise that Felix probably knew nothing specific about whether such a man existed, but had started to hear that some Christians were revering such a man. If Felix regarded the man as existing, Felix regarded him as wicked: I understood that to be your argument. Ted Hoffman wrote early on: “Indeed that is how he regards Christ: as a wicked man� (so Ted, I was not the first in this thread to append the name of Christ to the crucified man; I thought you assumed the name, too).

If Felix thought Christ existed only in a myth, then his judgment of the man as wicked is strange, because obviously he’s not a man whose human crimes have been punished by human authorities; and myths don’t say that their heroes are wicked. But perhaps Felix did think that the protagonist of this myth was wicked; or perhaps you don’t see Felix as having made a decision on whether the man was wicked (though Ted seems to regard Felix as having made a judgment).

The great problem with your conclusion is that Felix’s arguments are similar but not the same. Certainly the argument about the ass’s head is not, “idea for idea�, the same as the argument about the criminal and his cross. Felix says of the ass’s head, “Who is so much more foolish as to believe that it is an object of worship?� He never says, “Who is so much more foolish as to believe that a criminal and his cross are an object of worship?� Of course it’s an object: the calumny suggests that it an object, and Felix’s only objection is that criminals do not deserve to be made into God (hardly an idea he uses when discussing the ass’s head). If you’re insisting on “idea for idea�, then the difference in the argument about the criminal and his cross – the failure to deny that it is an object of worship – practically means that it was an object of worship among Felix’s own Christians (the sect Octavius is defending here).

Again, when discussing the ass’s head, he turns the tables on the pagans by noting how they do make such things actual objects of worship. Nowhere does he say that pagans make actual worship of a criminal and his cross. He can’t. But he does try to turn the tables on them somehow, by suggesting that it is they who believe that a criminal could deserve to be deified (as you also seem to read, per this statement in your online response to Don: “What Felix does say is that the pagans are wrong to think that a criminal deserved to be worshiped as a god...�)

No, this does not “nail� anything, as TedH believes it does. I do hear your position that Felix’s arguments hang together better if the smoking gun passage is read a certain way. I do hear that. But there is no proof of it (not that you’re saying that there’s proof), and it’s time to move on. In this post I have not discussed what really seems nonsensical to me about your interpretation. That was in my second disproof, which I know you have not had time to look at yet. But you did write some things that pertain to it, so I will repeat my second disproof in another post, addressing those things you wrote, and addressing a significant difference I hear between your interpretation and Ted Hoffman’s. It will be up in a few minutes.

krosero

Let me paraphrase the “smoking gun� passage:

“We don’t believe that anyone does these disgraceful things, except perhaps yourselves. Indeed when you accuse us of worshipping a criminal, we don’t do such a thing, but you seem to think that wicked men deserve to be worshipped as God; and you seem to think that earthly beings can be worshipped as God. But placing all your hopes in mortal men will leave you hopeless. The Egyptians make a man into one of their gods, and they lay on him a false and futile flattery.�

This is Felix's attempt to refute the calumny. But per TedH (and perhaps Doherty), Felix definitely agrees with central parts of the calumny.

… 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.

Ted’s Felix agrees that the crucified man was both wicked and revered in Christian ceremonies. In Ted’s words, “Indeed that is how he regards Christ: as a wicked man.� Ted’s Octavius might even agree with Caecilius that people who make their God out of a wicked man are probably wicked themselves. So what parts of the calumny does Octavius disagree with? He does need to disabuse Caecilius of the notion that Christians are “reprobate and wicked men.� But he can’t deny that the practice of worshipping a criminal exists, or that Caecilius has heard it to be a Christian practice. So he needs to distinguish for Caecilius which group of people is made of wicked men and criminal-worship, and which is not. Of course, he does no such thing. He just says that the worship of a criminal man is something that he would not believe anyone to do, except perhaps Caecilius’ own people: “things … which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves.�

By the word “yourselves,� Caecilius would understand himself and his own people – precisely the people who are scorning the criminal-worshippers. If Felix is somehow scorning the criminal-worshippers with the word “yourselves�, Caecilius has no way of knowing it. Perhaps Octavius just believes that the criminal-worshipers are no less pagan than Caecilius. Surely, then, he’d need to explain, perhaps like this:

“Look, buddy, the man was wicked, and so is the worship of him. But do not call that worship Christian; it has nothing to do with us. I would say that no one does those things except yourselves – meaning you and the people you wrongly call Christian. Yes, you’re no different from them, and I suggest you disassociate yourself from any line of thinking in which earthly beings could be believed God.�

Of course, he says nothing even close to this. His bald statement that these things are done only by “yourselves�, without an explanation that “yourselves� includes the criminal-worshippers, stands practically as proof that he did not mean to rebuke the criminal-worshippers. They are actually his people. They worship a criminal, but not a true criminal, for a true criminal does not deserve to be the one true God, and could never be believed the one true God.

Doherty has said that Felix meant to speak for all Christianity. I agree with that opinion. But per Doherty’s model (including Ted's statements), Octavius is facing at least two significant charges he agrees with: the charge that the man was wicked, and the charge that worshipping him is reprehensible. Octavius faces significant charges that he has no wish to rebuke, but actually agrees with wholeheartedly – and that goes against the point of the genre.

The best way, by far, for Octavius to disassociate his Christianity from another faith called “Christian,� is for Felix not to introduce it at all (to ignore it, as Doherty has argued). Octavius can condemn this other Christianity in the way I described above (which he doesn’t do), if Felix wants to introduce it to the discussion in order to condemn it – but it would be far better for Felix not to give his protagonist a problem. Surely he would have found a way to do that.

_______________

Now, Doherty has spoken of Felix as if he had no discernible opinion on whether the wicked man existed. So Octavius is just saying, “No Christian would worship such a man� (paraphrased). But when he comes to talk about the criminal, Octavius prefaces with a statement that does not sound agnostic: “Look, no one does these things, except perhaps among your own people, Caecilius� (paraphrased). It certainly sounds like he is saying that the practice does not occur outside of Caecilius’ own people. And Felix must have concluded, from a nonexistent practice, a nonexistent man.

But my chief problem is not what Felix believed about the existence of the man. Rather, I find it implausible that Felix could be saying that the practice was not occurring. In the historicist model, I understand it, because Felix is saying that only pagans could worship guilty criminals or mortal men, and he is not denying that a man who died as a criminal was being worshipped (he can’t even ascribe to the pagans, per his normal style, the worship of a wicked man on his cross). In Doherty’s model, Felix is saying that Christian worship never includes crosses or wicked men fixed upon them. Is it really plausible that he is saying this?

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Is anyone proposing that Caecilius had heard things which did not arise from some story about a crucified man? I’m not arguing here, what I have never argued, that the epistles or the gospels had actually arrived in the neighborhood. All I mean is that some people had started worshipping a crucified man on a cross (whether historical or heavenly), and that this worship produced the smoke. If so, Felix must have troubled himself to know it. It’s one thing to say that he could ignore the theology of other Christianities around him and speak of one faith. But it strains our skepticism to believe that he’d heard of the calumny but had not yet heard, or troubled to inquire, about where this was coming from, or about what the pagans around him could have heard in the wider world. That would make him not just different from NT Christianity, but also the kind of Christian who has not heard of anything that lay in, or behind, the NT – not to mention a Christian surrounded by pagans who cannot explain to him that they have heard anything about a crucifixion either.

From a historical standpoint, it’s overwhelming likely that Felix had heard of the criminal worship, and that his pagan audience had also heard of it (as Caecilius’ calumny practically tells us). In that situation, Felix cannot just say that the practice does not occur. Worse, he can’t say that only Caecilius’ people practice it. His audience would catch him in his lie, or his ignorance, and his weak attempt to shift on them the worship of a criminal on his cross. They would do all this, and reject at least this key part of Octavius’ rebuke, or reject all of Felix’s words as not worth listening to. Why would Felix not care to inquire where the smoke was coming from?

It’s hard to believe that Felix had heard of this calumny without his hearing that some Christians were practicing something that could be the target of the calumny. Maybe he knew of Christians worshipping a Jesus of Nazareth (for historicists of this kind already existed). Maybe he knew of Christians revering a heavenly crucifixion. But he’d heard of the crucifixion.

So if he knew the practice was occurring, and he knew that Caecilius or the audience would know the practice was occurring, he needs someway to explain that the practice was not what it seemed. This can happen in the historicist model, where Felix was a historicist sitting right in the middle of a (Logos-informed) historicist Christianity, and his audience would understand that all Christians proclaimed their man to be God’s Son from heaven, conqueror over death, not an “earthly being� or “mortal man� (the latter phrase being what everyone heard the Christians to be saying about men like Pharaohs). Now here, I can see people running for the door, for this is just too much to believe.

So I’ll take you back to the text. If Felix acknowledged, as he must, that criminal worship was occurring, he would need to have Octavius tell Caecilius that those worshippers (“reprobate and wicked�) were not his people, or something to that effect. He doesn’t: he just says that the worship is occurring only among Caecilius’ own people, and leaves himself vulnerable to correction and ridicule (either because he is lying or he is ignorant).

People do lie, of course. I just don’t know why Felix would write up a calumny only to lie about it, rather than just say, “Do not associate such worship with us, with true Christians. No true Christian could worship a mortal man�. If he’s lying, we get a Felix who has constructed his own dialogue in such a way that he needs to lie – and in such a way that his audience stands a good chance of catching his lie, since they believe they know something about the criminal-worship.

Now, “we Christians do not do this� makes sense if it means, “We don’t worship a true criminal.� Of course, Felix is not explicit about this, anymore than he is explicit about his faith under Doherty’s model, namely a heavenly principle that could never be a man. His statement that earthly beings cannot be regarded as God is a suggestion, nothing more, that he won't worship any flesh and blood (per Doherty’s model); it also works as a suggestion, nothing more, that he does not worship a true earthly being (per the historicist model). What we have is Octavius trying to convert Caecilius without being explicit about his own faith: he is only trying to refute the charges and prejudices. At the end Caecilius says, “I agree concerning the sincerity of the way of life which is now mine. Yet even still some things remain in my mind, not as resisting the truth, but as necessary to a perfect training of which on the morrow, as the sun is already sloping to his setting, we shall inquire at length in a more fitting and ready manner." So in the dialogue we have, Caecilius is just concerned with turning back the disgraceful charges upon the pagans. He turns upon them the veneration of genitalia. He turns upon them belief that a criminal could deserve deification, the belief that an earthly being could be deified, and separately, the belief that wooden deities in the shape of cross were actually divine beings. He never turns upon the veneration of a criminal on his cross.

So Felix is not explicit. And as Doherty has said, going into such questions as whether the wicked man existed would not dispel the charges as effectively as refuting those parts which were disgraceful. So Felix could be saying, “We don’t worship people, much less criminals� (per Doherty). He could also be saying, “We don’t worship guilty criminals or earthly beings� (per the historicist model).

Felix’s lack of explicit detail gives no proof either way. But right now, Doherty’s model seems to have a nonsensical aspect in the relationship between the calumny and the refutation, whereas nothing in the historicist model is nonsensical on such a basic level. TedH’s variation of the argument actually seems a little better, because it is not subject to any objections that I laid out against Doherty’s agnostic Felix, but it still fails to make sense to me, in the ways I described above.

If it can be explained to me how this works, and how my specific arguments do not describe Felix’s text correctly, nothing is lost, for no proof would exist either way. And after all, I entered a discussion where I have very little background, and if my disproofs fail, I’ll revise them or else withdraw and say thank you.

GakuseiDon

I suggest that it would be very unlikely that Felix hadn't heard of a Christianity where a crucified man named Jesus Christ was regarded as a God.

Felix refers to Octavius as someone who appears to have died a while ago: "WHEN I consider and mentally review my remembrance of Octavius, my excellent and most faithful companion, the sweetness and charm of the man so clings to me, that I appear to myself in some sort as if I were returning to past times, and not merely recalling in my recollection things which have long since happened and gone by."

Octavius, in his speech, refers to the famous rhetorican Fronto, who died around 170 CE. So Felix more than likely wrote as a minimum around 170 CE, at a time. One thing that I've pointed out is that Earl has suggested that pagans generally had an idea of what Christians believed about their own origins by around 160 CE. Certainly, Felix comes across as well-read and educated, the type of personal who would have heard about it.

Also, according to Caecilius, Christianity was a widely known cult, a conspiracy:

"why is it not a thing to be lamented, that men... of a reprobate, unlawful, and desperate faction, should rage against the gods? who, having gathered together from the lowest dregs the more unskilled, and women, credulous and, by the facility of their sex, yielding, establish a herd of a profane conspiracy... those abominable shrines of an impious assembly are maturing themselves throughout the whole world. Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out and execrated... Everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes. Nor, concerning these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and various, and requiring to be prefaced by an apology, unless truth were at the bottom of it... Some say that they worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites...

So, these are being represented as common charges made against Christians, "a conspiracy maturing throughout the whole world". Caecilius believes that there must be some truth to them - otherwise, why are people saying them? This, of course, is an opportunity for Felix to present charges that pagans were probably making in order to dismiss them.

I think that we should assume that the pagans had some idea about what Christians believed about their origins. We should take that on board when reading this apology, as well as others written from around that time.
I think it is worth reviewing the content of the story. Felix starts by reminiscing about his friend Octavius, a "remarkable and holy man", who appears to have passed away some time ago. The bulk of the apology is a recounting of the conversion of Caecilius.

The story starts Caecilius, Octavius and Felix out for a walk. Caecilius obverses a statue of Serapis, and raised his hand to kiss it, "as is the custom of the superstitious common people".

Octavius makes a pointed comment to Felix about this, referring to a "blindness of vulgar ignorance". Caecilius takes great offense at this comment. He stews for a while, and then lets launch with a diatribe, which consists of a defence of the Roman gods, and then a withering attack on Christian beliefs. Felix represents this as being done out of anger.

Chapters 14 and 15 represent how Felix and Octavius view these charges, and I suggest that these should be read, since it gives an indication of how the replies are formed.

Felix says: "concerning the entire kind of disputation--that for the most part the condition of truth should be changed according to the powers of discussion, and even the faculty of perspicuous eloquence. This is very well known to occur by reason of the facility of the hearers, who, being distracted by the allurement of words from attention to things, assent without distinction to everything that is said, and do not separate falsehood from truth; unaware that even in that which is incredible them is often truth, and in verisimilitude falsehood."

This suggests that there IS some truth in the falsehoods of Caecilius. It's possible that here Felix is anticipating doubts being raised by the crucifixion.

Also: "... in everything there may be argument on both sides; and on the one hand, the truth is for the most part obscure; and on the other side there is a marvellous subtlety, which sometimes by its abundance of words imitates the confidence of acknowledged proof--as carefully as possible to weigh each particular, that we may, while ready to applaud acuteness, yet elect, approve, and adopt those things which are right"

Again, it makes sense that this "subtlety" is something that is needed in explaining the crucifixion.

Octavius starts with: "I will indeed speak as I shall be able to the best of my powers, and you must endeavour with me to dilute the very offensive strain of recriminations in the river of veracious words. Nor will I disguise in the outset, that the opinion of my friend Natalis has swayed to and fro in such an erratic, vague, and slippery manner, that we are compelled to doubt whether your information was confused, or whether it wavered backwards and forwards by mere mistake... It is therefore no wonder if Caecilius in the same way is cast about by the tide, and tossed hither and thither among things contrary and repugnant to one another; but that this may no longer be the case, I will convict and refute all that has been said, however diverse, confirming and approving the truth alone; and for the future he must neither doubt nor waver."

I think that "I will convict and refute all that has been said, however diverse, confirming and approving the truth alone" is the key passage here. Octavius is responding to the charges, not trying to teach Caecilius about Christianity (which I'm assuming Caecilius probably has some idea about).

In short, this is why Octavius's replies consist of refutations rather than explanations. He refutes that Christians worship the head of an ass, but he doesn't say what Christians DO worship. He refutes the idea that Christian ceremonies are love-feasts, but he doesn't say what they actually are. And he rejects that Christians worship a wicked man and his cross, but he doesn't say what they do worship. His concern is to show that the ideas which Caecilius finds objectionable about Christianity are actually part of Caecilius's own beliefs.

Given the similarities to other apologetics of the time, I can't see Felix as being anything other than a standard historicist, who believed that Christ was a crucified man who was actually a god.

Ted Hoffman

THE FIRST DISPROOF
Krosero, you have dropped your irrefutable argument appeal (a.k.a. the first disproof). I will therefore start building the case against the second disproof here as I respond to your post and GDon's. I suggest you clearly understad this section before reading my rebuttal of the second disproof.
We are not using silence; there is an operative model guiding us: a Christian either regards a flesh-and-blood man as a saviour/deity, or does not.

MF does not. Therefore, he is a Christian whose brand of Christianity does not entail a HJ. We know that Christianity is not Judaism and we know that Christianity entails some intermediary salvific or revelatory force, or a creative, illuminative figure. This figure, as we see from the documentary record, can be a son (Shepherd of Hermas etc) the Logos (Epistle to Diognetus), a mythical pre-existent god (Pauline), a demi-god who was born through immaculate conception (Matt, Lk, John etc), or a man who was chosen by God (the Markan adoptionist sense).
What we are assured of is that whatever conclusions we reach, we can be confident that his brand of Christianity represents a Christianity devoid of a HJ. I build on this below.
My bad. It was to facilitate the exchange with GDon on the identity of the wicked man - since GDon was saying it is someone other than the putative Christ.
We do not know that "Felix thought Christ existed only in a myth". What we know is what he says. And what he says is the following:
a) A man can/should never be worshipped irrespective of how good he is: at best we can honour an illustrious man and love good men, not worship them.
b) Worshipping the head of an ass is folly. Worshipping a wicked man and his cross is folly. Laying ones hopes for salvation on any man is equally folly.
c) It is silly for pagans to think that "a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God".

What he doesn't say:
d) That the wicked man was in fact not wicked. [I take this to be tacit acquiescence that the accusation was on target]
e) That Christians actually worshipped a good man who redeemed Christians from their sins.

(a) would directly contradict (e). This would render the historicist model, to use Krosero's words, "nonsensical on such a basic level". And, because MF offers no supervening qualification to allow a HJ to be elevated as a deity through special pleading, we are confident that MF rejected a HJ.

Instead of dealing with the primary accusation that Christians did worship a criminal, MF instead says that even thinking that someone can do that is wrong in the first place. He does not bother to disabuse such Christians of such charges [it means that accusation did not sting him because he was not guilty: he did not feel compelled to be an apologist for views he did not hold].
Instead, he offers a governing principle which in effect castigates both the pagans and anyone who would worship a man [it means that he is rebuking Christians who believe in a HJ].

He consequently assumes a higher moral and philosophical ground than both warring parties. What this means is that he belongs to another group altogether, or he is presenting a faction of Christianity that is not guilty of the pagan accusation of worshipping a man.

If he identified with the Christians who were allegedly being falsely accused by the pagans, he could have defended his sect, and dealt directly with such accusations, or at the very least, identify who he worships and thereby vindicate his religion from such accusations.

But (a) above rules out that he believed in a HJ. Furthermore, when he writes that "The Egyptians certainly choose out a man for themselves whom they may worship", and goes further to fault the Egyptians for that, he means that his own religion never worshipped a man because; by slamming the Egyptians, he could have ipso facto slammed himself too.

The only way to advance a HJ case here is by accusing MF of being a hypocrite, which is a hopeless approach. One has to assume that MF was rational and intelligent and that he expected the readers to be able to make sense of what he wrote, without contradiction.

THE SECOND DISPROOF
I have actually disproved the second disproof in my segment above. But let me try to summarize the second disproof for the purposes of clarity.
It appears to be comprising three arguments:

I

1. Octavius needs to distinguish for Caecilius which group of people is made of wicked men and criminal-worship, and which is not. But he does not.
2. But by telling Caecilius that some of the calumnies "were true concerning yourselves", we can conclude that Octavius did not mean to rebuke the criminal-worshippers.

Rebuttal
Octavius rejects the worship of godmen.
Octavius castigates both the pagans and any other persons who worship men. Because his rejection of these practices is all-encompassing, he does not need to categorize because he does not condone them in any form.
II

1. The [criminal worhsippers] are actually his (Octavius') people (i.e. Christians). "They worship a criminal, but not a true criminal, for a true criminal does not deserve to be the one true God, and could never be believed the one true God."

Rebuttal This is incorrect as we see above. Secondly, Octavius does not say that people he recognizes as "his" worship a man. It has to be "other" people, even if such "other" people happen to be Christians.

III

1. The best way, by far, for Octavius to disassociate his Christianity from another faith called “Christian,� is for Felix not to introduce it at all (to ignore it, as Doherty has argued).
2. Octavius can condemn this other Christianity in the way I described above (which he doesn’t do), if Felix wants to introduce it to the discussion in order to condemn it – but it would be far better for Felix not to give his protagonist a problem. Surely he would have found a way to do that.

Rebuttal
Octavius regarded these practices as reprehensible in all instances. He therefore had no need to pussyfoot around them or conceal them since he did not see them as his own weakness, nor regarding their exposure and criticism as damaging to his own beliefs, which were obviously different.

krosero

You don’t know that “MF does not.� You know that MF does not say he worships an HJ. He also does not say that he rejects an HJ. I know that the smoking gun passage is read that way, so let’s get to it.

The chief problem I have with (a) is that you assume MF to reject HJ Christianity and to be someone who would have referred to the crucified victim behind Christian worship as “an earthly being� (you have used the phrase “a man� but that is not MF’s phrase). The reason it seems to you that MF is referring to THE victim as “an earthly being� is that he challenges Caecilius to ponder the irrationality of potuisse terrenum as God. Translations give “an earthly being.� That phrase, taken by itself, could be taken to imply “this earthly being.� I have noted on this thread that MF does not use any of the words that would have denoted “this� (hic, haec, hoc). MF seems to be laying out for Caecilius the entire hypothetical set of earthly beings and asking him to ponder if Christians could have made “God� (deum) out of anyone in that set (he offers the Egyptians as examples from that set, actually from the subset of “mortal man� or homine mortali). Technically, we could have Octavius mentioning potuisse terrenum and meaning “this one was an earthly being (and I agree with you, Caecilius, about the reprehensible nature of the worship),� rather than the standard reading where Octavius is only challenging his friend and saying, “Think, Caecilius. Do you really think an earthly being could be made into Deum (the Christian God)?�

But here someone more knowledgeable in Latin could help us decide. I have never studied Latin and yet I can tell that MF has not specified “this� earthly being. Can you establish that “this� is the meaning and that the standard reading cannot be? I have an idea why the context of the statement we’re looking at makes the reading of “this man� not possible, but I want to leave that for a separate post. For now it suffices to say that, apart from its context, (a) is possible, if “this man� can be read in there, as an implied and silent meaning. But that is far from established as the only possible meaning.

In both (a) and (e) you have used the word “good man�, instead of MF’s phrases. In (e), you were describing a hypothetical HJ Felix, but I doubt that such a Felix would use the word “good man� to describe the being who delivered redemption. It would make Christians sound like the pagans who deify earthly beings who happened to be morally great. The idea that a man can be deified if he's morally great is a very modern description, but hardly one that Felix would use (not even the Jews and pagans described Christ as a “good� man). People get deified not when they're good but when they seem to have great power.

At any rate, I showed that (a) is possible, apart from its context, but not inevitable. No contradiction can be made with (e), which in any case is not how MF would describe his faith. An HJ Felix would not say that he worshipped a good man while pagans worshipped evil men. An HJ Felix would say that pagans make men, with all their flaws, into gods (exactly what we hear in the dialogue), whereas he himself worships an eternal being (or principle) that came down from heaven (though the dialogue is silent on the contents on his faith). He would not refer to Christ as “a good man�, and would only describe him that way if talking about how people SAW him, although I doubt even that. Those who accepted Christ saw him as much more than a good man, and those who rejected his status as a prophet or a divinity rejected his goodness, too. “Good man� is very much a modern way of looking at Christ. (Which is another reason I don’t think that the comment about giving love to a good man really refers to Christ).

The fact that Felix speaks throughout his work of only two groups of people, represented by Caecilius and Octavius, strongly supports the conclusion that Felix is not suddenly speaking about a third group of people with regard to whom Caecilius and Octavius would be in agreement. At the same time, this fact works as positive evidence that Felix was united with the Christians who worship a crucified man, since Octavius shows throughout the dialogue every intention of defending the Christians whom Caecilius is scorning. The idea that in this one instance, Felix means to do something different, pushes the limits of believability.

I hear many times that we have only what Felix wrote, and I agree. But to be really specific, we have only what Octavius says (I’m setting aside what Felix, the character in the dialogue, says, unless there’s something relevant in his words to this discussion). And Octavius was most definitely not a third party to the conversation. Felix was a third party, entrusted as judge, and we tend to see him as in agreement with Octavius. No, when Octavius says what he says about the criminal, he’s speaking for one of the two warring parties.

He does that, as noted, by turning back the disgraceful aspect of the charge: the disgrace of worshipping someone wicked and/or earthly.

I certainly agree that we shouldn’t postulate a hypocrite. But MF is a hypocrite only if he is saying, “You pagans cannot worship a man, but we can.� I doubt very, very strongly that Felix would have called Christ “a man� and found that phrase an essential description, or even that he would have used the term. If he rejected HJ Christianity, then sure, I suppose he would call the crucified victim “a man�, without worshipful qualification or addition. But that has not been established, and cannot be, unless MF gives us the contents of his faith, or unless the smoking gun passage really means what Doherty says it means.

See above for that.

I said above that I can’t see any ancient person calling Christ “a good man�, and I can’t see them calling him a god-man. Felix does reject the notion that men can become gods. Christianity, except in Ebionite form (and perhaps in Mark if we believe him to be “adoptionist�), tells of something divine that, if it descended (I take it that the universality of this claim is under dispute), entered human flesh, or the appearance of human flesh. Christ was regarded as God who became man, not a god-man. Of course, pagans believed similar things, too. But Christians did not see it that way. They saw pagans as merely deifying mortal men. Freethinkers in recent centuries have said that Christ was just another godman. It’s a modern way of putting things. If “godman� is to have any use in these discussions, we have to define it with the words that Felix uses.

As for distinguishing between Christians, if Octavius makes no distinction, then Caecilius, even if he feels rebuked for thinking that criminals could deserve deification, will probably be smiling and thinking that he has proved one set of Christians, at least, “reprobate and wicked�; and he would want to remind Octavius that he, Caecilius, was no friend to such Christians or their way of thinking and did not really deserve to be rebuked by Octavius on that subject.

So technically, Felix could have meant to construct a defense of “Christians� (the only word he uses) in which some Christians were proven by all parties to be wicked, when the wickedness of Christians is the central subject in dispute. There’s nothing in the laws of physics to prevent such a supposition. But I have to say that it carries no credibility with me.

As noted above, Octavius is defending “Christians� throughout. It is not credible that in this one instance, he means not to defend Christians but actually to say something that vindicates Caecilius’ scorn.

Your rebuttal works as a response to #1 and #2, which comprised the last paragraph that I originally wrote. But as I noted in my disproof and above, when Octavius attributes the practice to “yourselves,� Caecilius would have no way of knowing the criminal worshippers were being rebuked. He leaves the dialogue thinking that some Christians are indeed wicked and reprobate. Perhaps that is what Octavius wanted. I doubt it. I think we can find out by focusing on the smoking gun passage even more closely.

As I alluded to, I have another post, much shorter than the others. The more I work out my disproof, the shorter it becomes. It’s down to 350 words. I’ll post it when it’s ready. Thanks for the detailed responses.

krosero

I fully agree, and apparently the case is stronger than I thought.

Do you have the reference, Don?

I think, Don, if I'm not mistaken, that Felix is referring here to the marvellous subtlety "on the other side" of the obscure truth. I read those two chapters at your suggestion, and the theme seems to be how subtlety and eloquence tend to win out over substance. Felix says that the discourse of Caecilius had "harmony" and "subtile variety."

Caecilius certainly did. And we have no reason to assume he knew more or less than the pagan readers of the dialogue.

I think that's a terrific summary of the problem.

GakuseiDon

Yes, exactly. Both TedH and Earl are saying that Octavius rejects the worship of a man, therefore he must be rejecting the HJ. But Christians of that time like Tertullian and Justin Martyr would also have rejected the notion that Christ was just a man. There is simply nothing non-orthodox about how the views are stated.

GakuseiDon

I discuss this on my website article here:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus..._Part2.htm#1.3

Earl says in his book:

The first of the satirists to pillory Christians is Lucian, who in the 160s wrote On the Death of Peregrinus in which he mocks them for their gullibility in accepting beliefs "without any sure proof". Here he refers to "him whom they still rever, the human fellow who was crucified in Palestine for introducing this novel cult to the world." By this time the Gospels were in circulation, and everyone knew what Christians now believed about their origins.