Roger Pearse

Nor is there any antique evidence that they were seen as heretical.

On the date of Minucius Felix, these comments translated from E. Heck, M. Minucius Felix. In: Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, vol. 4, München 1997, § 485, p. 512:

Date: SCHANZ 3, 268f. (BibL), overview by BEAUJEU, Ed (Lit.1), XLIV LXXIX; CLARKE, 5-12 =JRH 4,1966/67,267-286, here 267-271, where Becker, 74-97 is lacking. Indisputably are only t.post. (mid 2nd C.), the mention of Fronto (9,6. 31.2), and t.ante. (305/10), the testimony to the Octavius of Lactantius (T.l. 2). A more exact date is only possible by clarifying the relationship to Cypr. and Tert. The research has particularly concentrated itself on the places where Min. Fel. is closely related to Tertullian’s Apologeticum (s. § 474 W.2; List BEAUJEU, Ed., LIVf.) affected (FBer. with methodological analysis: DILLER, Lit.l, 566-568.579-581; BECKER, 74-78; vgl. BEAUJEU, Ed., LV-LXVII; to consider throughout, although often too sharp, AXELSON, Lit.l). Following his predecessors, particularly Heinze, Diller, Axelson and Buechner (all Lit 1), Becker on pp. 79-94, has convincingly settled the question in favour of the priority of Tertullian by proving that Min. Fel. uses Tertullian in the same imitative way as he does Cic. and Sen.; in addition, where in Min.Fel. Tertullianic material is supplemented by Ciceronian (e.g. 25,1-7; s. Lit.3), the acceptance of the priority of Min. Fel. presuppose an improbably complete elimination of all Ciceronian material by Tertullian. For priority of Min. Fel. still ABEL (Litl), 249.259 supp. 3; ID., Gnomon 37,1965,736; DANIELOU, 161-174, with missed argumentation (vgl. already AXELSON, 17f.). Sceptical VON GEISAU (S.O.), 988-994 (with reservations against AXELSON, whose criticism on the "Epigonen� of Min. Fel. goes too far; s. Lit. 6); see vgl. KYTZLER, Ed.(Lit.l), Vif. - BECKER, 94 shifts t.post. of 197 (composition of the Apologeticum) to 212 (Ad Scapulam; § 474 Lit. 11), without convincing; on the other hand AHLBORN (Lit. 3), 133-137 shows that he probably made use of De resurrectione carnis (§ 474 Lit.27), which sets t.p. about 210 - independent of the relationship to Tert. information due to historical indications in the work (no pursuit time) gives a date between Severus Alexander and Decius, so HARNACK, Geschichte 2, 2, 326-330; on Caracalla’s accession 211 as t.post. due to the statements about Egyptian cults such as Sarapis LIEBERG (Litl), 62 Anm.l; other such attempts with CLARKE (S.O.), 8f.; SCHMIDT 1977 (Lit.5), 145 Anm.2; they do not result in a convincing specifying of the t.p. (so JOHANNA SCHMIDT, Min. Fel. oder Tert.?, Diss. München 1932; criticized by DILLER, 567) – clearer is the relationship of Min.Fel. to Cypr. (vgl. BEAUJEU, Ed., LXVII-LXXIV) and as t.a. more surely won: Ad Donatum (§ 478 W.7) (246/49) is dependent on Min.Fel. (PELLEGRINO, Studi, 111-115); ...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

EarlDoherty

Let’s get a couple of minor points out of the way first.

Don suggests that recognizing Tertullian as having borrowed from the Octavius (written c.160-170) to construct his Apology (written c.200-220) presents a problem for me. I assume he means that if Tertullian did indeed rework Felix, then he didn’t perceive any problem in him. Even if that were so, it doesn’t have to be surprising. Tertullian simply read into Felix what he wanted to see there, according to his own beliefs—which of course is exactly what is going on here, 1800 years later. On the other hand, do we really know that Tertullian did not have some qualms about what Felix had conveyed, and the reason why we find so much about an HJ in Tertullian’s Apology (and certainly nothing of the rather striking condemnation about the crucified man in Felix), is that he wanted to ‘correct’ the impression and omissions he perceived in the earlier work?

Also in regard to Don, “accusing� someone of being an atomist is quite legitimate. The idea is a technical one, used in the field. I don’t know of any contemporary scholar who has been accused by another scholar of being an atomist (it’s usually a label given to an ancient writer), but there’s nothing even remotely ad hominem about it. It’s an analysis of how the writer/apologist in question deals with his material, and is therefore a legitimate judgment to make. Whether it’s accurate or not, is something that can be discussed or disputed.

There has been some discussion about whether Felix regarded the crucified man as “wicked� (i.e., a criminal). This is a good example of how a given point can be over-analyzed, and I think there’s a lot of that going on here. Felix is simply dealing with the accusation as presented by Caecilius. As I’ve said, the latter’s phrasing of the pagan accusation entails the assumption that the man in question (fictional or historical) was a criminal. Felix’s response deals with him on that level of assumption. (You say we worship a criminal? Well, you’re wrong, because no criminal…) He doesn’t get into any discussion of whether he thinks the charge was justified (did he even think in those terms?) , whether the accusation is based on an actual historical man or event, whether it’s derived from a piece of writing or tradition, and so on. Speculating in these areas can be unproductive, and threatens to distract from the basic analysis of the text, which is what we are mainly concerned with.

Which is not to say that stepping back to look at the larger picture is not relevant. In fact, I think we often benefit from doing so. One of the problems Don sees in that larger picture is the question of how Felix saw his version of Christianity against the one revealed by the pagan accusation. He assumes, and no doubt rightly so, that Felix could hardly have been ignorant of those circles which did have a crucified man as part of their faith. The very fact that he includes such an accusation from Caecilius’ mouth shows that he couldn’t have been completely ignorant of it; he knows it’s there and he has to deal with it. But the nature of his response reveals his attitude. First, he lumps it with other, horrendous crimes of which Christianity is accused. Right there, we see his disdain of the crucified man idea. Moreover, the specific manner of his dismissal, the treatment he gives the subject in his response to Caecilius, further reveals his disdain, that he regards the idea as crazy: what criminal would deserve to be so worshiped, what man could get himself to be believed as God? How foolish do you think we are? It’s as if a Christian minister, when confronted with a list of criticisms of his faith or the policies of his church, were confronted among these with some reference to communities like that of Waco, and the minister simply dismissed it as a lunatic fringe: do you think our faith is truly represented by wackos like this and their crazy ideas? From the text itself, this is the sort of attitude we see in Felix regarding the crucified man idea. He dismisses it as a reprehensible expression of the faith, to be found in circles he regards as a kind of lunatic fringe. That ‘fringe’ may have been around for a good half century, but the record shows (starting with Ignatius and hints in 1 John, for example) that it began slowly and intermittently, emerging only piecemeal and in different forms, while the great bulk of the non-Gospel Christian record through that early period overwhelmingly witnesses to many circles of the faith which did not have an historical Jesus. (Even the Gospels cannot be demonstrated to have been initially intended or regarded as historical record, and we can see them as only coming to be so regarded in the same slow and intermittent way.) Don keeps suggesting that my view of how Felix related to the crucified-man circles of the faith presents a problem, but I see no problem at all, and suggest that he take a closer look at that larger picture (as I laid out in detail in my posting of a few days ago), and moreover look at it without his orthodox-colored glasses on.

Now on to some specifics in Krosero’s postings, especially in regard to his general statement: “That's not enough to wipe away the lack of coherence I see in the "smoking gun" passage, as interpreted by Doherty. And if that passage doesn't work according to his interpretation, the rest of the theory needs to be dropped or revised.�

In his “disproof� of my interpretation, Krosero starts by laying out a lengthy argument. I can’t see any way of editing this to make it shorter, and thus I’ll quote it in its full text, with interposed comments:

This sounds like a well-reasoned argument. But it suffers from two flaws. The first is that it introduces (they almost slip by without notice) a couple of unfounded assumptions. The first: Krosero says he is “not sure� that the pagans would have claimed that criminals deserved to be God. I say that there are no grounds at all for this being the case, and certainly not as presented in Minucius Felix. This unfounded assertion will turn out to seriously undermine Krosero argument here.


The main problem here is Krosero’s statement: “…but you seem to think that wicked men deserve to be worshiped as God.� This is an unfounded implication he lays at Felix’s door. It’s based on Krosero having turned his earlier “I’m not sure that (the pagans) would have said that a criminal deserves to be worshiped as God� into the assumption that they did. And because it’s unfounded, much of what follows in Krosero’s reasoning collapses. Felix nowhere says or implies that pagans worshiped wicked men. He merely says that “you seem to think that we worship a wicked man. Even when he gets to his parallel with the Egyptians, he does not say that the man they worship is wicked or a criminal; simply that they are wrong to turn their man into a god, and would be better advised simply to treat him with love and honor if he is a good man and a good ruler.

Careful here. Yes, Krosero is right in that Felix agrees with Caecilius’ attitude toward worshiping a crucified man and his cross; he finds it no less reprehensible than Caecilius does. But Krosero is introducing nuances that aren’t justified. Felix accepts the charactization of the man in question as a criminal, calling him “hominem noxium: a criminal/guilty man�; Caecilius had referred to him as “a man punished for a crime,� while referring to the people who worship at such ‘altars’ as “sceleratis: wicked�. But this is not quite the same as saying that Felix thought that the crucified man was wicked, in the sense that he accepts the historical existence of such a man and that he regarded him as having in fact been wicked.

Now, just a minute. There are niceties within niceties here, and it’s not laid out overly clearly. I would not blame any reader for not being able to follow such a subtle line of argument, which for reasons I’ll go into I don’t think works anyway. But let’s see if I understand him correctly. He says that Felix cannot let Caecilius continue to think that Christians are wicked, and yet if Felix agrees with Caecilius that it is wicked to worship a crucified man while at the same time accepting that some Christians somewhere do that very thing, these two things ought to stand in conflict in Felix’s mind. Krosero claims that Felix would have to resolve that conflict, and yet doesn’t do so.

But again, imbedded in this presentation are nuanced assumptions which are not necessarily valid. Just because Felix would have a need for Caecilius to be disabused of his blanket condemnation of Christians as “wicked� people, doesn’t mean that this would have to be all people who claim the name Christian, that there wouldn’t be some “Christians� who fell outside the pale. Even if he acknowledged (to himself or anyone else) that some who call themselves Christians actually worshiped a crucified man, this doesn’t mean he would feel constrained to rehabilitate them in Caecilius’ eyes. In fact, quite the opposite. By casting scorn on the idea of worshiping a crucified man, Felix is dismissing them, implying that they are not to be considered true Christians. I don’t see his failure to spell this out, to make a distinction between such ‘faux’ Christians and the true Christians he represents, as being a problem. It might more properly present a problem if he did try to spell it out. Remember he is not writing for “Caecilius�. He is writing for his readership in general. The debate between Caecilius and Octavius is a literary device. He may have felt it was best not to throw a spotlight on the diversity “in the ranks,� but simply to dismiss what he regards as a crackpot fringe, much as a Christian minister, when discussing what was proper in Christian faith and activity, would choose not to dissect what was being expressed by the Waco-type fringe; he might simply condemn as offensive one of their central aspects. And the very fact that he could dismiss that fringe out of hand with so little attention to it shows that it is just a fringe, just as the criminal-worshipers among the “intermediary Son� ranks of the faith were, from Felix’s vantage point, to be regarded as a fringe element.

Let’s note a further unfounded assumption on Krosero’s part: that Felix would think in terms of “other Christians� with whom he would feel closely linked, namely the criminal-worshipers. In light of my long post about the nature of the faith in the early period, someone like Felix would not have seen this as diverse parts of a unified movement. It’s not like having to account for, let alone defend, a wayward child who lives in the same house with you. Rather, he’s dealing with an accusation that applies to a neighbor whose relationship to one’s own family is not so close, and whose practices are starting to be confused with one’s own in the public mind. Perhaps he should have made that more distant relationship clear (though as I said, he may not have wanted to confuse the reader and risk creating a misleading impression by minutely discussing differences between alleged “Christians�), but the fact is, he simply chooses to heap scorn on the practices and point out how they are irrational.

Again, niceties that are not only irrelevant but based on unfounded assumptions. First, I have just shown that Felix would not consider it necessary to include one ‘branch’ of “Christians� (because he wouldn’t have had to see it in those terms) as being among those he is condemning for practising the accusation “yourselves�. Krosero has gotten himself into an overly subtle argument, based on reading things into Felix’s attitudes and his interpretation of Christianity and its diversity which are not necessarily valid for him. In other words, Felix has not, contrary to Krosero’s suggestion, included one branch of Christianity in the “yourselves� and failed to make required distinctions, expecting Caecilius to somehow understand this on his own. Again, all of this is following on premises Krosero has laid down in the course of his argument which need to be questioned. Thus, the ‘explanation’ Krosero suggests Felix supposedly needed to make, but didn’t make, is an exercise in reading into the document something that isn’t there.

But the surprising thing is that Krosero has appealed to that ‘blanket condemnation’ passage which, as I pointed out in an earlier post, has devastating implications for attempts like those of Don and Krosero to impose orthodoxy on Minucius Felix. The “yourselves� is part of a comment Felix makes just before he addresses the crucified man allegation and just after dealing with the ass’s head and priests’ genitals allegations:

�These and similar indecencies we do not wish to hear; it is disgraceful having to defend ourselves from such charges. People who live a chaste and virtuous life are falsely charged by you with acts which we would not consider possible, except that we see you doing them yourselves.� (My translation for clarity, as I pointed out earlier.)

If Krosero is going to appeal to this passage as applying equally to the crucified man as to the other accusations, how can he then dismiss the clear implication this language has on the topic of the crucified man? Its effect overrides any other consideration or interpretation which Krosero is trying to base on it. Here Felix has called all these things “indecencies� and “charges we have to defend ourselves against�. He ranks them all together as being in the same category, so that any implications resident in the other accusations (which no one would deny) has to apply to the crucified man. To have it otherwise would require apologists to go into yet another set of alleged implications and qualifications on these sentences as they have tried to do in regard to the sentences about the crucified man. It’s all just too much to accept.

And so we’ve arrived at the point where we can see that, because of faulty elements in the course of his argument, Krosero has arrived at an invalid conclusion. The “yourselves� cannot be seen to include the “Christian� criminal-worshippers. Nor can he claim that Felix does not mean to rebuke them, or that for Felix these are “his people.� In any case, to arrive at such a conclusion, even if the process of one’s argument were not demonstrably faulty, would itself be suspicious anyway, because if Felix did not intend to rebuke the criminal-worshippers, why did he go about in a way which creates the strong initial impression that he is doing just that? Why do his very words sound like nothing so much as a condemnation? If it requires long, subtle and convoluted arguments on the part of dedicated modern apologists to explain how a passage in fact means the opposite of what it blatantly looks to be saying on first (and I would, say second, third and twentieth) reading by the average mind, then THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG. Exercises like this that we have seen from Don and Krosero do nothing more than point this out.

Well, that’s my point: Krosero’s second claim, that Octavius faces charges he doesn’t want to rebuke but agrees with, is simply invalid. It’s invalid from the argument that Krosero has drawn, and it’s invalid from simple common sense, since if all these layers of meaning were present in Felix’s mind, and it was his intention to convey them, he would have had to fashion his remarks very differently. Unless he was a particularly obtuse and untalented writer, which I don’t think anyone would agree was the case.

I have gone into a very detailed (and time-consuming) analysis of Krosero’s presentation here simply to illustrate a point, and because it is necessary if one is going to take on a commitment to deal with an opponent’s arguments. But that doesn’t mean I can take the time or feel the necessity to deal with every case of such apologetic argumentation. I don’t have that kind of time and energy.

But let’s look at a few points made by Krosero in his next post, responding to the one I made the day before yesterday.

Again, this is over-analyzing. The best we can say is that Felix is treating the crucified man as “wicked� for the purposes of argumentation. That’s the way the accusation has defined him, and Felix simply accepts that. I have suggested that Felix does not have a “Christ myth� in the sense of Paul, but only a mythological Logos (in the sense of it being a spiritual entity existing in the heavenly dimension and serving as channel to humanity, a concept for which I have traced a feasible line of development from Philo to the second century apologists). Again, look at the passage. Felix is simply responding to the idea of worshiping a criminal and his cross. He calls it a ridiculous idea. He has no urge or necessity to get into the kinds of issues Krosero raises, as to whether the man was historical, or if so, whether he was really wicked. It is offensive ideas that he is concerned with, just as he is concerned with the offensiveness of the idea that “his people� would worship an ass’s head or priests’ genitals, or slaughter infants. In the latter case, he does not raise questions about whether records exist in police departments to support such allegations; he does not question the reliability of witnesses to what Christians may have done to asses or genitals. In all cases, he responds to the idea itself, calling it foolish or an abomination, or unthinkable. That, and that alone, is what he does in regard to the crucified man, showing once again that his thinking on all four itemized topics, and his approach to them, is identical.

Krosero is holding me to a standard of literalism that I am hardly implying. The first “idea� common to both responses is that it is “foolish to believe such a thing�: that we would worship an ass’s head, or that we would worship a criminal and his cross. The second “idea� common to both is in turning the accusation around and saying, in fact you do the very thing you are accusing us of. Naturally, he does not say, or literally mean, that anyone turns an ass into a god, although even here there could be such an implication, for the apologist Aristides does indeed fault the Egyptians for creating gods out of animals. But then Krosero makes the ultimate appeal to literalism amd draws a completely unfounded conclusion:

…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...

Felix fails to deny that it is an object of worship? I can’t agree. He may not use those exact words of denial, but what he is saying is directly tantamount to denial. To say that it isn’t is to bring us back to square one. When he says, how can you think that criminals and mortals deserve to be worshiped as gods, and foolish is the man who does so, this is the denial, it is a denial through directing Caecilius’s attention at the offensiveness of the idea, and no one who was not determined to see it as otherwise would take it in any other way. This is Felix’s own attitude, and the attitude he claims for his own faith. Just because he might be pressed to admit that there are other circles somewhat related (or at least, the pagans would see it that way) to his own, circles who do have man and cross as objects of worship, this does not mean that Felix does not deny it for himself and his faith circles. It certainly does not mean (as Krosero has turned it 180 degrees to mean) that it was regarded as an object of worship “among Felix’s own Christians�! This is the kind of apologetic “black is white� reasoning process which people like myself feel such despair over, and admittedly find it very difficult to deal with, especially when it keeps getting repeated even in the face of all our attempts to make them realize what they are doing. I know that Krosero and Don will not agree with this, but I hope I’ve managed to demonstrate to others that this is a valid criticism.

Krosero’s later post, as he alerts us, repeats much of what he says earlier, so I don’t find it necessary to address it. He has summarized by suggesting that at the heart of my contention lies a “nonsensical aspect between the calumny and the refutation,� but I think my comments above have demonstrated that Krosero’s faulty arguments have made this suggestion unfounded.

(Having now read Ted Hoffmann's response to Krosero's "proof" posting, I find my own response a bit long-winded. I think he did a great job. I will try to respond to Don's recent remarks later tonight. If not, tomorrow.)

krosero

I found this point about your despair worth responding to first, even if you didn't offer it first. There's not much I can do to persuade you of my arguments, but if you see my arguments as "black is white," something needs to be said in reply. I was not using a literal standard to draw a conclusion. I would never draw from the differences between Felix's arguments a proof, or even a conclusion, that Felix's own people did have the crucified man as an object of worship. That is, in fact, too much to believe. I said "If you're going to insist on idea for idea," then you will get a reversal of the conclusion you want to reach. Implied in my words was that I did not actually believe you would be that literal. Yet you spoke of the general coherence of Felix's arguments as if it could compel a certain reading of one of his arguments, and that's an invalid procedure. You said it was a fact that was staring us all in the face. That is the kind of language that I was responding to. I felt, and still feel, that you were overreaching with the general coherence argument. If an argument from coherence can produce arguments 180 degrees different from one another, the criterion of coherence is being used incorrectly. You chose to see my comments on this as an apologetics trick.

I did say that I could hear your argument that Felix's arguments hang together better if the smoking gun passage was read a certain way. If that's your argument, I have no problem with it, not on that general level. Just so long as you don't tell me that a coherence between Felix's arguments on a general level compels us to read an exact meaning in a specific passage, namely that Octavius was rejecting any worship of a crucified man. You say above that Felix does actually deny such worship. We have said again and again that such a reading is not compulsory. Whether Felix can be saying that any worship of a crucified man is wrong, is a question that I think the debate has finally focused on, and which I want to skip ahead to rather than haggle further. As I told Ted earlier today, I have a 350-word version of my disproof which deals with the question of whether Felix could have meant to discount any worship of a crucified man. Which is why I'm glad you brought this up:

Again, you say that the blanket condemnation applies to any worship of a crucified man. My next post will be up shortly and I hope you will comment.

(Ted, I hope you do, too).

So there is no misunderstanding: if my disproofs don't work, that's fine with me. Both sides got to make, and hear, good arguments along the way.

One thing I have learned in this debate is that it's not necessarily better to try and cover every point when making arguments. You end up just writing more which can be debated or dismissed, and the most important points can get lost. So it's useful for me to hear how the length and style of my arguments sound to you.

krosero

If Felix did not believe that the worship of a crucified man was occurring, or he was agnostic about its occurrence, why has he not heard of it, and why has he not troubled himself to find out what the pagans might be hearing to throw such accusations his way? Is it possible that the pagans had heard of a kind of worship that Felix had not heard about and remained ignorant about until he wrote his dialogue? Is it possible that the pagans had heard a rumor which was not stimulated by any story of crucifixion but was a random calumny?

THEREFORE:

If Felix believed that the worship of a crucified man was occurring, why does he say that only Caecilius’ people could be capable of such worship? Why does he do that, when he knows that the pagans have heard of the worship of a crucified man and are eager to ascribe it to Christians? He leaves himself exposed; he openly lies, and discredits himself.

THEREFORE:

When Octavius says that the disgraceful practices could only be done by Caecilius’ people, and he proceeds to give an example concerning the worship of a criminal and his cross, he cannot mean that the disgraceful practice of Caecilius’ people is the worship of a crucified man (for everyone in his audience, Christian and pagan, would call him on that). Nor does he charge them with worshipping a crucified man. But he does tell Caecilius what his friend can believe and cannot refute, namely that Caecilius’ people are capable of believing that a criminal – a “wicked man�, in Caecilius’ words – can in some way deserve deification as (the Christian) God, and that his people believe an earthly being can be deified. Because Felix gives out the criminal-worship as an example of what pagans do, his words cannot be specifying the practice of worshipping a crucified man. There is a rejection of deifying wicked men, and a rejection of deifying men who spring from the earth and return to the earth. There is no rebuke of anyone who worships a crucified man. There is no rebuke of Christians, hypothetically separate from Felix, who worship a crucified man. There is no evidence that Felix was separate from them.

_____________________________

Some supporting arguments (not integral to the main argument):

Octavius’ statement that the disgraceful things are done only by “yourselves�, without an explanation (thoroughly required by Caecilius) that “yourselves� includes the people whom Caecilius thinks were worshipping a crucified man, leaves Caecilius thinking that Octavius is condemning Caecilius’ people alone, and not the people worshipping a crucified man: he will hear succeeding statements as Christian accusations toward pagans. He will hear that pagans might think a criminal deserves deification by Christians, and that pagans might think an earthly being deserves deification (Caecilius hears the latter accusation from Octavius elsewhere). In short, he will hear Octavius charging pagans with believing something about a certain character of man (since Octavius uses the word “deserves�), and he will hear Octavius charging pagans with deifying a certain type of man (one that comes from earth and returns to earth).

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. The fact that all the other calumnies are turned aside, as they are meant to be in such a genre, strongly supports the conclusion that Felix has not introduced a calumny, about worship of a crucified man, that he has no wish to refute. 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.

____________________________

RELEVANT TEXTS:

CAECILIUS: I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; 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.

OCTAVIUS: These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves. 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. 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 hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.

EarlDoherty

Lest anyone should still be unclear on this, I’ve stated in previous posts that I agree with Don here. Felix must be familiar (though to what extent we don’t know) with sects calling themselves—or that pagans regarded as—“Christian,� who worship a crucified man whom they regard as historical. While I also agree with the assumption that “pagans had some idea about what Christians believed about their origins,� the way Don has phrased it may be somewhat misleading. In keeping with my emphasis on the diversity of a very broad movement, I would state it that some pagans were becoming familiar with “intermediary Son� sects which had adopted a crucified historical Jesus, and they were associating such sects with “intermediary Son� sects/philosophies which did not. The distinction is that Don wants to read his statement as having implications for Felix’s attitudes and what he allegedly must have brought to his writing. But If Felix regarded them as only distantly related, or perhaps not at all, and he didn't share those beliefs in a crucified man, he wouldn’t have felt any necessity to do anything more than deny that such beliefs were to be applied to his religion, which he does by heaping scorn on them.

Let’s be clear on one thing. First of all, we don’t know if Octavius was a real figure, as Felix starting out this way may also be part of the literary device he is employing. In any case, even if Octavius was real, the debate is hardly something Felix is reconstructing from memory in regard to its actual content, how it is laid out, the specific wording and argumentation we find in it. That is Felix’s own product, if only because it has too many consistent marks of a literary and editorializing nature. Anyway, one could hardly believe that Felix had that kind of prodigious memory.

Once again, Don has done what has been most characteristic of him since the beginning. He fails to properly analyze a passage according to its context. Preceding his above quote from chapter 14, he has left out a few lines which would have made that context clearer. Felix (who is here speaking as a character in the debate scene, the referee if you will) is being critical of Caecilius for challenging Octavius to respond to what he boasts has been a powerful presentation by himself. “Restrain your self-approval,� he chides Caecilius. While your discourse had lots of delightful variety, he says, I am “moved� (by which he means “bothered, troubled�) by the tendency in debates to judge the “truth� of the matter according to the power of a speaker’s eloquence. This is known to occur because audiences are swayed by the oratory. “The hearers…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…�

Seen in context, it is clear that Felix means nothing more by the phrase in bold than to give an example of how audiences are swayed by eloquence: they can fail to distinguish between falsehood and truth. It’s a plain and simple thought. There is nothing here to justify Don’s suggestion that Felix is trying to convey that “there IS some truth in the falsehoods of Caecilius,� much less that this is a subtle pointer ahead, designed to allay the doubts that will be created by Felix’s own treatment of the crucified man accusation. (The failure of Felix to properly respond to Caecilius on this topic, creating confusion in the reader’s mind, is allegedly to be countered by offering this even more subtle pointer, 15 chapters earlier, that hints at a solution? This would be subtlety within subtlety, obscurity within obscurity. What would ever possess Felix to operate this way?)

When Felix continues (in that quote from chapter 14 above): “…unaware that even in that which is incredible there is often truth, and in verisimilitude falsehood,� this is simply enlarging on the “do not separate falsehood from truth� remark. He is saying that people often let a speaker’s oratory prevent them from recognizing that there are shades of grey, that an assertion can be partly true and partly false. There is no reason to regard this as being intended to have a specific implication for Octavius’ eventual response, a kind of ‘nudge-nudge, wink-wink’ comment by the author to get himself out of the jam that will be of his own doing when Octavius responds to Caecilius’ accusation on the crucified man in so confusing (for orthodoxy) a fashion. If he could be that clever in countering such confusion (and how could he possibly think that the reader would “get it�?), he could be even cleverer by not creating it in the first place.

The same comments are applicable to Don’s further quote and suggestion along the same lines:

The suggestion that this, too, rather than a further general comment on how we should approach debates and judge the truth and content in what the debaters says, is intended to look ahead and provide “subtle� insight on Octavius’ handling of the crucifixion, is more malarkey—or if you prefer, let’s call it wishful thinking. The context neither necessitates, nor does common sense allow, such an obscure interpretation. In fact, it is Don doing what he does best, and which I continually call attention to: being atomistic, taking words and passages out of context and alleging that, even if hardly obvious, logical or necessary in the context itself, they have a meaning or significance in a way pertinent to his own interests. And Krosero, because it furthers his own identical interests, embraces it without discrimination.

Then there’s this (Don’s quote is from chapter 15):

How Don can draw comfort from this passage for his view that Felix is an orthodox Christian simply eludes me. This, in fact, is the sort of passage whose equivalent I have called attention to in other apologists. Octavius is making the declaration that he will be clear and resolute in laying out the truth, so that Caecilius, who has hitherto been tossed about by contrary and repugnant reports, will, once he has heard Octavius, “neither doubt nor waver.� Does what Octavius actually provides in the way of response to Caecilius’ accusations even remotely fulfill such a declaration? Does he make it clear what Christians, such as Don alleges Felix really is, actually believe about the crucified man? Will Caecilius no longer be tossed about in misinformation and uncertainty, but be ‘unwavering’ in his knowledge of what the crucified man really was? If Octavius had lived up to his promise, he wouldn’t need apologists like Don and Krosero to invent elaborate ‘explanations’ for what he was trying to say, to counter the contrary impressions that his words actually create.

If, as Don claims, Octavius is “responding to the charges, not trying to teach Caecilius about Christianity,� how is this “confirming and approving the truth alone�? Does he do this in his response to the charge that Christians worship a crucified man? All Caecilius can come away with is the impression that Christians like Felix regard this alleged practice as foolish, that the believer who subscribes to it is “miserable,� that it is an obscenity like the rest of accusations he has leveled against them. Why is “responding to the charges,� especially in this misleading fashion, a more preferable way to “confirm the truth� to Caecilius than actually teaching him about Christianity? Don does not explain. He says:

I can’t follow Don’s alleged reasoning here. “This is why Octavius’s replies consist of refutations rather than explanations.� What is why? That Octavius intends to “confirm and approve the truth alone�? As I pointed out above, that doesn’t follow, since refuting the charges in this manner hardly confirms what the truth is. Or is the “what� that “Octavius is responding to the charges, not trying to teach Caecilius about Christianity�? That would make the statement: Octavius’s replies consist of refutations rather than explanations because Octavius is responding to the charges, not trying to teach Caecilius about Christianity. That tells us nothing, and is a tautology.

And just why is Caecilius’ concern “to show that the ideas which Caecilius finds objectionable about Christianity are actually part of Caecilius’s own beliefs�? What purpose does this narrow approach to the question serve in light of Felix’s alleged purpose to make all clear to Caecilius? Don does not explain.

Whereas, if my view of Felix’s type of faith is correct, the quotation from chapter 15 makes simple and consistent sense. He only needs refutation. (The “explaining� is based on Don’s imposition of orthodoxy on the mind of Felix.) Octavius will “confirm and refute� the accusations and “approve the truth alone� by pointing out how ridiculous the accusations are. That is his refutation, nothing more. It’s legitimate, if limited, as there were other ‘proofs’ he could have offered, such as there being no documented case of such a thing as slaughtering an infant. Be that as it may, Octavius/Felix is of the opinion that what he does is sufficient, since what rational man would think that all these alleged behaviors and beliefs, from the ass’s head to the crucified man worship to the slaughter of infants, could be entertained or performed by rational people? (In this, of course, he is being naïve, as well as somewhat inconsistent, in that he also throws out a comeback in the form of accusing the pagans of doing those very things themselves.)

Don’s argument throughout this posting (#125) is so woolly as to defy understanding, let alone acceptance. As for the rest of his comments, that “He [Octavius] refutes that Christians worship the head of an ass, but he doesn’t say what Christians DO worship� etc., they are a virtual non-sequitur. They too tell us nothing. We already know this. It does not explain why Felix only denies the objectionable worship and does not reveal the supposedly true worship. If in all these cases Octavius does not inform his audience as to what Christians actually DO, how can such an approach enlighten Caecilius, how can it fulfill Octavius’ promise to “confirm and approve the truth alone�? Even more, how can it justify Don’s reading of that allegedly subtle “intention� by Felix in chapters 14 and 15 to provide an insight into what he is really going to mean when he gets to his opaque (H. J. Baylis labels it “oblique�) and confusing response to the crucified man accusation?

Don does not explain.

“Let him who has ears, let him hear� would be nowhere so pertinent for an apologist than in the case of Minucius Felix’s smoking gun passages. But somehow, I don’t think Felix can be accused of being remotely of that mindset (the document reveals that he is a far more rational man than that), and I pray that I haven’t given Don an opening to further pursue his apologetic shenanigans. (What can I say, I’m Irish, and these are Irish terms—having light-hearted connotations, I hasten to add, which I hope everyone realizes!)

krosero

Did you not notice that I argued against Don on this point? Here is what I actually said:

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."

GakuseiDon

The problem here, though, goes back to one of my earliest points. Ignatius and 1 John present Christ as a god, not as a mortal man. The earliest historicists didn't believe in a crucified mortal man, but in a crucified god. (Wouldn't the mythicist position be the same here?) Felix would have been aware of that brand of Christianity. So Octavius's comment: "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." is oddly out of place if it is an attack on that kind of Christianity.

Wouldn't you say that more than likely Felix was aware of those Christians who worshipped a crucified Christ as a god?

Yes, that is a valid criticism. Not that I think that I am necessarily wrong, but it is a weak point on my part. Like on point on Felix's comments on the Egyptians, I would need to show that Felix was orthodox first before I could attribute such meanings to that passage.

TedM

I know I’m late coming into this, but I finally read the whole apology. As it turns out it seems to me that the other chapters don’t illuminate the meaning of chapters 9 and 29. I admit upfront to not having read all of the posts here, so feel free to ignore my post as it may be repetitive or way behind at this point.


THE PAGAN VIEWPOINT, as expressed by Caecilius.


Caecilus accuses the Christians of terrible things including incest and the beating to death of babies. He says that their religion “glories in crimes�. He then gives an explanation for why they would glory in committing crimes: Their founder was a criminal:

“Ceremonies are explained by a reference to a man punished…for wickedness“

More details:
“The man experienced extreme suffering�
“to the deadly wood of the cross� (implies that the man was crucified)
They worship “what they deserve�, implying worship of the crucifixion or death.


The pagan viewpoint doesn’t emphasize worship of a man. Nor does it emphasize the worship of a cross. What IS emphasized the most is the wickedness of the man and the Christians that worshipped him.

This by itself would imply that the pagan objection to Christianity’s origins was its worship of a crucified criminal, and NOT that it was the worship of a human being. Had worship of a human being been a primary objection, one would expect Minicius to have emphasized that pagan point.



THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE, as expressed by Octavius

1. Worship of a criminal

On the subject of worshipping a criminal, he writes in Ch 29 . And in Ch 35 he writes: “for us, even to think of crimes is a sin�

Given Minicius' other obvious references to Christian virtue in response to Caecilius, it is clear to me that he is rejecting the charge that Christians worship a criminal.


In addition, he makes several references in the same paragraph that SOUND LIKE Christians considered the crucified man to be a good man: “whereas honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man�. This could be a generic statement, as he doesn’t ascribe it to Christians. However the fact that he appears to be contrasting Christian beliefs with pagan beliefs argues for a Christian attribution, since it follows on the heels of a description of Egyptian kings and their receipt of false flattery. Also, he says “ We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship….. and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched.� This appears to connect the cross with a righteous man (perhaps generally). Why? Is it because the pagan charge of worship of a crucified man was accurate? Or is it because Minicius accepted the idea of a crucified Savior--ideal man, perhaps the one Doherty attributes to Paul? He doesn’t say.



2. Worship of a human being

Since the pagan seemed to believe Christians worshipped a crucified man, obviously they believed he worshipped a man also. Octavius didn’t need to address this if that were the case. But he does. Why? He doesn’t say that Christians don’t worship a specific man, nor man in general. But he does say that an earthly man isn’t able to be believed God. He then appeals to death itself as proof.

We saw above that Minicius possibly viewed the crucified earthly man as "illustrious", "very good", and a man who “adores God with a pure mind�.

About God, he says in Chapter 19 “Based on his understanding of God it makes sense that he would say that no earthly man is able to be believed God. As such it isn’t clear whether he is saying “we don’t worship a man because he could not have been God�, or “we don’t worship a man because he is no longer a man�, or “we don’t worship the man because he was great role model only� or “we don’t worship a man because he never was a human being�. Or conversely, it isn't clear if he is saying "we do worship a man, but he wasn't God", or "we do worship a man for being a great role model", or "we worship a heavenly Son", etc... It just isn‘t clear. He really never answers the question: Do you worship a man, and if so, how?

It may be noteworthy that when discussing Roman trophies he writes “Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.� Why does he add that point? Is it a reference to the Romans unknowingly acknowledging to the specific crucified man Jesus, as he implied was the case with Jupiter (being a semi-equivalent to God)? Or is it a reference to the Romans unknowingly acknowledging some other Christian understanding of the cross?

It seems odd that if Octavius wasn’t acknowledging Christian worship of a man he didn’t describe what it was that his Christians worshipped. He didn’t have to, of course, but it seems odd that since he seemed to focus on how an earthly being couldn’t be God, he wouldn’t have gone on to explain who was being worshipped and why.

In conclusion,

1. Pagans are portrayed as thinking that Christians worshipping a human
2. Pagans are portrayed as thinking that Christians worshipped a criminal
3. Minicius rejects the claim that Christians would worship a criminal.
4. Minicius seems to imply a connection between a good man and crucifixion but it isn’t clear if he has in mind a specific human being who was previously crucified
5. If a man was crucified, it is not clear how Minicius’ Christianity worshipped or perceived the man’s divinity, though clearly he does not equate the man with God himself

I don't find anything which rules out either the traditional HJ viewpoint or which rules out Doherty's MJ.

Comments?

ted

GakuseiDon

That's an excellent point, TedM. I missed that. It is indeed a curious comment for Octavius to make if he is trying to deny a crucified man.

As do I. Felix's comments are not inconsistent with either a HJ, Pauline MJ or even gnostic position.

Ted Hoffman

krosero,
I must congratulate you on a fine post. You make valid arguments and on the face of it, you have validly shattered what I posted. I am impressed because you confront my arguments directly and you dont waffle. That, I must say, I like very much when I am debating someone.
There are several critisms that Doherty has made against you which are valid, and which have taken away the sting from your rebuttal, but I was impressed that, at least momentarily, I thought I may have to revise my position on MF.
It has been long since I saw an argument that made me sit up. So thanks for making this stimulating.

Enough of praises. Lets get back to work.
I want to start with the arguments you made which, if I falsify, as I will shortly, take you back to square one and which will compel you to have to go back and address my arguments in #126. I show that you have arbitrarily posited a hypothetical set of earthly beings, which you are desperate to conveniently divide into subsets and assign one inferior subset to the Egyptian Gods and men and then assign another superior one to an incarnated God (Jesus). I show below that you have no grounds and no competence to even imagine this set, and no feet to support this argument.

I also show that your inattentiveness to the fact that there were heresies, schisms and heterogenity of beliefs in early Christianity makes your interpretation suffer because it is devoid of background material which the readers of MF, doubtlessly had. I ultimately demonstrate that the Christ that you posit is right in the mythicist camp and that in the process of your vermiculations you have actually presented a mythical Jesus (a pre-existent God who incarnated) on an earthly plane. To do this, you have had to fabricate spurious sets and subsets of beings, whose existence, as we see below, cannot be supported by the text in question.

ON POTUISSE TERRENUM BEING MADE TO A DEUM

I argued that MF had to have rejected a HJ because he rejected the deification of men. Your refutation of this entailed the proposition that MF did not necessarily regard the crucified criminal as “an earthly being� and that Octavius was asking Caecilius to ponder the irrationality of an earthly being, being made into a God by Christians.
You argue that there is a set of earthly beings (potuisse terrenum) that "MF seems to be laying out for Caecilius" and that mortal men (homine mortali) were a subset of these beings, and that Egyptian gods were derived from the subset of "mortal men".
You also mention possible denotations of hic, haec, hoc then you confess: "I have never studied Latin and yet I can tell that MF has not specified “this� earthly being." You then request: "Can you establish that “this� is the meaning and that the standard reading cannot be?"

First of all, you are on a fishing expedition here. You want to formulate an argument that you hope exists, and that you are not competent enough to judge whether it actually exists and whether it can actually be advanced.

This means that your argument has no leg to stand on. In fact, it is not even ar argument: it is an expression of hope - a wild conjecture that you are throwing at us to evaluate. By flinging it at us and confessing your inability to judge whether it is valid, you expose its purpose in this context: it is a red herring.

Secondly, I suggest that the purpose of Latin expressions that you have sprinkled in your post like potuisse terrenum, hic, haec, hoc and homine mortali is to camouflage the fact that there is no argument behind them and that they have been used to create an impression, not to explain anything. In other words, you are blowing smoke.

Thirdly, when you write "MF seems to be laying out for Caecilius the entire hypothetical set of earthly beings", "seems" is a subjective statement whose weight we cannot evaluate. Does MF in fact do so, or he does not? If he does, where? How many subsets of the hypothetical set of earthly beings does MF "lay out"? Please cite the relevant passages. If you cannot, please withdraw this claim. And consequently the entire argument.

Fourth, by stating "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.", MF is arguing that criminals and earthly beings do not deserve to be worshipped.
Wrt criminals, Octavius is responding to the charge that Christians worship a criminal and his cross and also slamming the pagans who equally worshipped a criminal (Saturn, Octavius argues, devoured his children - more below).
With respect to earthly beings, MF is arguing that Christians do not worship earthly beings at all (the whole alleged "set").

Fifth, a criminal is of course an earthly being. So is a man. Whether he is referred to as "the man" or "a man" does not really matter because the important point, for MF, is that earthly beings are mortal. You are therefore guilty of quibbling over denotations whose significance you cannot competently demonstrate.

We are not told in Octavius that the criminal in question delivered redemption. You are guilty of reading into the text what you want. I would argue that if MF thought the criminal did so, he would have corrected the glaring error that the pagans would therefore be guilty of making. This is not to argue that MF was unaware that some Christians actually believed that: it is to argue that MF did not hold such beliefs himself. And that is what is important here.

Pagans did not worship good men alone according to MF. MF regarded Saturn as a criminal who ate (his) babies, hence pagans were guilty of deifying people who were criminals in the eyes of MF. IIRC, mythology has it that Saturn ate his newborn children, to prevent them from one day overthrowing him so one day, Rhea tricked him into swallowing a rock instead of the baby (their lastborn) and that is how Zeus got a shot at life and later kicked Saturn's butt.
I thought so too: momentarily. But its now clear that you did not. Until then, I think you should address my argument with a different set of rebuttals.
By the same argument above, this too has been taken out.
If it is silent, why do you then proceed to speculate? Do you think that this is a correct method of analyzing this text krosero?
Doherty noted that:
I think this should be a guiding principle to all of us.

You have admitted that there were Christians like Mark (and Ebionites if you want) who held the adoptionist view. We have Christians like Luke and Matthew who believed that the holy spirit made Mary pregnant and she conceived a son who became the son of God. We have those like Paul, who believed what you think MF believed, with the difference that Jesus did not reach the earth, we have Christians who believed the son was a revelatory source, we have those who believed that the logos was an idea in the heart of God (Athenagoras) - others believed that the logos was a creative force, there are those like Marcion who believed that what some saw as Christ was not an incarnation of God (to him, God was too pure to even incarnate) but a manifestation of God etc.

Now, what criteria have you used to settle on your version of what MF believed Christ was? Have you introduced arbitrariness into this analysis?
This is blatantly false. Marcionites and other gnostic sects never saw Christ as a man, leave alone a good man. You have no grounds for presuming that MF was an orthodox Christian.
You have made this claim twice. Please provide some evidence for it.

ON MONOLITHIC CHRISTIANITY VS PAGANS

I argued the possibility that MF was presenting a faction of Christianity that is not guilty of the pagan accusation of worshipping a man.
You responded that:
Again, prima facie, this is a good argument.
But first, I think we need to agree on one fundamental fact that you and GDon appear to be inattentive of: That Christianity was a heterogenous religion in the second century. Christianity, you will agree, was characterized by what Doherty calls a riotous diversity: Marcionites, Ebionites, Adoptionists, gnostic cults, logos-centric Christianities, and several multiple schisms existed on matters of theosophy, the nature of spirit, dualism and so on. Do you agree with this proposition?

If you do, then you will agree with me that even though the dialogue is between Caecilius and Octavius, readers of MF were left to identify what doctrines MF's brand of Christianity rejected and which ones he espoused.
Octavius is very clear that MF rejected the notion of a man ever becoming a god.
For the purposes of clarity, godmen were typically children of gods like Hercules, Dionysus and Jesus as portrayed in Lk and Matthew and they were typically men who has the ability to perform supernatural feats. In other words, they were men who were gods.
A dialogue is a literary device. You think MF memorized the exchange between Octavius and Caecilius?
as Doherty noted:
Felix is passing a message. He is using Octavius as a mouthpiece to share his beliefs surrounding Christianity. In other words, Octavius is presenting MF's views.
I wrote:He slams the pagans, yes, but he does not deny that the man was wicked, nor does he deny that Christians worship such a man.
What he does is castigate anyone guilty of such an accusation, and he cites the pagans as guilty of what they accuse Christians of, though he fails to vindicate Christians of the accusation.
You are using his turning the accusation against pagans to mean that he therefore denied that Christians were guilty as accused. This is false because (a) he does not deny that the Christians are guilty (b) more importantly, his statements fault such a practice in general, irrespective of who is actually believing in a man.
To escape the blade of (b), you are arguing that Christ was a pre-existent God who incarnated (therefore not a bona fide man) but was never an earthly being [how would that work?].

But you are still on sandy ground because (1) Octavius does not say this: it is a meaning you have supplanted into the text (2) you have no objective method of determining which kind of Christ MF believed in from the array of Christs we find in the documentary record (3) the Christ you propose is not a HJ - hence you lean towards Doherty's theory (a flesh-and-blood man - a HJ - must be born on earth in the adoptionist sense - the Historical Method has disallows gods incarnating to men). Therefore, in an effort to elude the mythicist snare - you have run right into our camp. Here, have a beer.Make yourself comfortable.

ARGUMENT FROM FAILURE TO SALVAGE/REHABILITATE THE WICKED MAN

Pagans, through Caecilius, accuse Christians of worshipping a criminal and his cross.

If MF/Octavius believed that the wicked man was actually not wicked, he could have said so, or said that the criminal was not actually a man.

But his comments do not rehabilitate the criminal or deny the pagan accusation; instead, he condemns all people who engage in such practices, and says all that worship "earthly beings" are miserabe.

Therefore MF did not believed that an earthly being like Jesus was worthy of eorship and hence did not believe in a historical Jesus who died to save Christians.
Is this a fact or an expression of your own personal discomfort?
What is important are the arguments. Mark 9:37 "whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." Turton writes in Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark : "Note again that Jesus refers to himself as sent, apparently by God, a position consistent with a Christology of Adoptionism."
In Mark 1:10, upon baptism, God declares that Jesus is his beloved son. Unlike Mark who offers no genealogy and birth narrative for Jesus, Matthew and Luke posit Jesus as the Son of God from the beginning. This is not accidental as exegetes have noted. Of course Adoptionism later came to be considered heretical but Mark preserves that tradition beautifully.
Marcion would disagree that God would enter the physical sphere, leave alone occupy the corruptible human flesh. You have no basis for ascribing to MF Orthodox views.
And you would still have MF contradict himself if we were to agree with your statement "God who became man, not a god-man". Because a man, MF maintains, is not worthy of worship.
MF cannot accomodate your theory because Christ/God cannot be man. Plus, if there was a distinctioin, as you claim, that made Christ a different kind of man from Saturn, MF would have brought it out. But he does not. This is why your only hope is to arbitrarily posit a hypothetical set, which you break to subsets, and then you massage the wicked man into one subset that is superior to what was that hominus terrenei? You realize how arbitrary your approach is becoming? We are approaching chaos.

MF fails to salvage the wicked man from the heap of baby-eating, head-of-ass worshipping and other wicked calumnies, because he sees the wicked man as belonging in that garbage heap. Nothing to redeem or rehabilitate: he junks the wicked man in toto. This can only be because he thinks the theory is garbage and pagans are right to think it is.

But that smile would be wiped off immediately the pagan realized that he too is guilty of being “reprobate and wicked� because Octavius blasted his moral superiority.
Plus, the pagan cannot be satisfied knowing that his barbs fell harmlessly at the feet of Octavius' superior philosophy and moral outlook. In essence, Octavius shows that the accusations are off target and instead, teaches the pagan "the way".
Unless, of course, we want to assume that pagans were expert doublethinkers incapable of seeing themselves and pondering Octavius' weighty words
This is a good point however, such an approach wold have fomented discord and exposed the Christians as fragmented. The pagans would have jumped at any sign of internal conflict and exposed Christians as confused and without direction.
Plus, remember that these are fictional people, not real ones. A Christian would probably have gotten into a fistfight with a pagan accusing his holy Jesus of being a wicked man, rather than engage in the sedate logical argumentation MF presents.
But we are speculating again.
George Orwell's Animal Farm has animals that are more equal than others but is not about animals at all. GMark presents an adoptionist Christology, presents the Petrine Church as headed by dumb, unreliable people and so on, yet these are not themes one can see at a glance. That is why a text has to be analyzed to get the authors' themes and subthemes. The presence of a main theme does not rule out that there are sub-themes.
By all means, lets move closer to it.
You have employed the "yourselves" reference in a fashion that entails vindication of the Christians, which, as I have shown above, is misleading. I await your response to that and the rest of the arguments.