GakuseiDon

Thanks for that, Steve. You've shown that at least one other person has translated it as "as a criminal", so I've accused Doherty unjustly for trying to provide an inaccurate translation.

Amaleq13

I would expect a Christian to respond to all three the same way. I would expect him/her to start by denying his guilt and follow it up by asserting a conspiracy on the part of the Jewish religious leaders or the Jews in general.

GakuseiDon

If there is no distinction, then that's fine. So why is there a problem in the presentation, as Doherty says?

I think that Minucius does do some of these things. But some things he leaves out for his target audience, just as Tertullian does. Arnobius wrote around 300 CE. If Doherty is right, then Minucius wrote more than 100 years earlier, to a pagan audience still atuned to the "shame of the cross".

Is there anyone who thinks that Tertullian wasn't a HJ believer? Anyone at all? Doherty seems to accept it.

Close, but not quite that. I'm saying that if one alleged HJ believer wrote one piece of work that did not mention the historical Jesus (and other pieces that did), then we can't assume that another author who does not mention the historical Jesus and covers similar material in his apologetic wasn't necessarily a HJer.

I think he does, though indirectly, when he says:

"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".

This isn't inconsistent with a belief in a crucified HJ.

GakuseiDon

I think it does. If a document by a HJer, covering similar topics, and written at around the same time to a second document, doesn't mention the crucifixion, then why should we expect the second document to mention the crucifixion?

Yes, in that passage in which the sentence appears:

"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".

Bernard Muller

I think "punished as a criminal" can have two meanings:
a) punished like a criminal (which does not say Jesus was a criminal)
b) punished because he was a criminal.
According to the translations I saw on this thread, I would lean towards b).
Frankly, at that point, I do not know the implications, except that for the second case, any Christian would object.

I think the defense of Minucius Felix is the same that Tatian did regarding Christian writings, in the passage scrutinized ealier in another thread:

"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame.

Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales."

Essentially, Tatian admitted those Christian stories looked legend-like also, but the Greek ones are ridiculous. And the Pagans, from what they believe in, are not qualified to criticize the Christian ones. TAKE OFF !!!

This is a limited and soft defense of what is likely the gospels. Why did Tatian not go any further? Possibly not to get entangled into the gospels' mess (which would explain why he wrote the Diatessaron, a nice harmony eliminating things such as the conflicting genealogies and avoiding the dual genetic father problem and "proving" the canonical gospels can be reconciled)

I think the defense of Minucius about cross & crosses, and the man crucified on it, is also a "soft" defense. Why "soft"?
Maybe he thought that was a good stategy. After all he had his Octavius keeping his cool and looking unruffled under a downpour of accusations against Christians. Just to "prove" you can be a Christian and not be a fanatic OR react with hate to calumny from Pagans. Also to "prove" this matters can be discussed between Pagans & Christians on a very gentlemanly basis.

"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. ... whereas honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man. ... 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. ... and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it."

Minucius does not go as far as Tatian in "closing the loop". But the message is clear:
Christians believe the ONE (crucified) is not a criminal or strictly an earthly being. He also brings about that crucified so-called criminal/normal_mortal is believed God (this notion is not in the Pagan's accusation). Then he suggests the man in question is illustrious and very good. Ant that Christians do not worship crosses (plural). But nothing is said about a cross (singular).
Finally, he says that Pagans adore crosses in different ways, even those which look to have a man on it. But then Minucius does not say anything like: you also adore crosses, let us worship a particular one. However his final comments are going in that direction:
"... and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it."

Doherty's comments are based on the assumption the accusation (likely from a fictitious character) should have been replied to by Octavius (probably another fictitious character) with virulence and zeal and completeness. But that does not mean that Minucius had to oblige, isn't it?

Best regards, Bernard

Steven Carr

Doesn't Tertullian say somewhere that there were Roman records of the birth of Jesus?

'But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ.....'

While the history might me wrong, it is an attempt at history.

the_cave

Not that I have much invested in this debate either way (and I am mostly unfamiliar with the sources), but dying "as a criminal" and dying "for wickedness" could mean the difference between dying as an unjustly accused man, and dying as a justly accused man. I would say it's ambiguous.

Good question.

No, he's simply saying it's possible in principle, which blunts some of Doherty's force.

My reading is that he's simply saying the cross is a popular object of devotion, and so why shouldn't the Christians use it as well?

Toto

Doherty's method is to analyze these texts as literary works, looking for signs of a HJ, and looking for missing references to the HJ where they might have been expected.

The problem is that Minucius does not write as if he is defending a HJ. He does not counter statements about a criminal dying on the cross with the explanation that Jesus was innocent and was dying for us or to atone for our sins - which the church today considers the heart of Christian theology. He forces Christian apologists to invent all sorts of reasons for these omissions, or to read things into the text that are not there.

I don't think that you can read Doherty as if he were an apologist. He does not "prove" things the way an apologist does who assumes the truth of a particular document, where A shows that B must be true, which shows etc, etc. His background is evidently literary analysis.

Semblance

He forces Christian apologists to invent all sorts of reasons for these omissions, or to read things into the text that are not there.

Which is exactly what GakuseiDon is doing in this thread!

...as Christians do indeed worship a man...who suffered death as a criminal.

Preconception.

While no Christian would deny that Jesus was crucified as a criminal... [emphasis added]

Preconception. If you are going to start with this conclusion, then you're just wasting time with these texts.

...then why should we expect the second document to mention the crucifixion?

For the same reason that later commentators felt very much obliged to mention it. One very real possibility is that the later commentators did not share the religious beliefs of the author of MF.

The only thing "clear" is that you've read your preconceptions into the text. The text simply does not say what you claim.

This is best summarized by Doherty:

GakuseiDon

I would say that Minucius isn't writing to defend a HJ. His concerns are attacking pagan mythology, and answering the misguided beliefs about the Christians of the day. He seems to only touch on a HJ (if he does at all) in so far as to defend Christians as worshipping someone wicked.

I think there is more than enough in the text to say that Jesus was innocent.

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.

It's very indirect, but what else can Octavius be trying to defend here?

As for why he doesn't cover the subject of the atonement explicitly, I'd say that it's because that isn't the focus of his apologetic. He is defending Christians and attacking pagan beliefs. Tertullian doesn't refer to it in Ad nationes. Why not? (Note that I haven't referred to Christ's atonement for our sins in any of my posts either).

I kind of agree. There has to be a reason why Minucius Felix, Tatian and Tertullian could construct similar apologetics that barely touches on a HJ. But any such explanation needs to account for the fact that (definitely) Tertullian and (arguably) Tatian were HJers. What is the best explanation, IYO?

OK. Why does he not analyse Tertullian's Ad nationes then? It has a clear literary relationship with Minucius Felix, but Doherty ignores it. Yet Ad nationes also has no interest in directly defending a HJ, and doesn't even refer to "Jesus" and "Christ".

Without that analysis, Doherty's research is incomplete. I can think of no reason that we could apply to Ad nationes for the lack of directly defending a HJ that also couldn't be applied to Minucius Felix.