GakuseiDon

I think that there is enough information now to make sense of the key passages in M Felix. I believe that they show that M Felix isn't making any non-orthodox statements about Christianity.

First, the key passages:

he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal (hominem noxium) 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 "noxium" in "Hominem noxium" means "harmful, noxious; guilty, criminal". Interestingly, the word "malificus" (which M Felix doesn't actually use) means "wicked, criminal, nefarious, evil; harmful, noxious, injurious; of black magic".

I suggest that Christians were being accused of practising, if not black magic, then 'Satanic' rites of wicked nature. Another accusation listed by M Felix is:

Now the story about the initiation of young [Christian] novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds.

Thirstily--O horror!--they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence. Such sacred rites as these are more foul than any sacrileges.

And this, I think, is the key to the meaning behind those passages. There is evidence that Christ was accused as being a sorcerer (Celsus), and that Christians were accused of worshipping a man who performed necromancy or spirit-divination with the cross (Pionius).

But other pagans clearly were hearing something different. Lucian in the 160s CE refers to Christians who "worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers". Lucian notes how gulliable these Christians were.

I suggest that M Felix is referring to those pagans who believed that the wicked man was more along the lines of the sorcerer rather than the sage.

This also makes sense of M Felix's comments on the cross. One thing that is overlooked is that the accusation is that Christians worship a criminal and "his cross". The reply shows that the accusation includes a worship of the cross itself, suggesting an occult meaning:

Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for... We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.

Christians didn't worship actual crosses, which Pionius associates with black magic. Instead, M Felix emphasizes the "naturalness" and purity of the sign of the cross. Anything that is natural can't be associated with black magic.

andrewcriddle

Assume that all Tacitus knows is that a/ Christians claim an origin as followers of someone called Christ killed by Pontius Pilate and that b/ they only came again to the serious and hostile attention of the Roman state in the later years of Nero.

He would likely interpret this as Christ having had followers before his death,(how else could he found a movement or be worth executing ?), and that these followers lay low and kept quiet for a generation before making trouble again in the late 60's CE.

IE Tacitus would assume that there were followers of Jesus making a nuisance of themselves around 30 CE, even if he lacked direct evidence. And he would interpret the absence of evidence about Christian agitation till the 60's as showing that killing Christ was a short term success for the Roman state.

Andrew Criddle

krosero

Mr. Doherty, and anyone else, is most welcome to answer any other questions I've posted, and I encourage it. But I offer the following as a disproof of Mr. Doherty's recapitulation of Minucius Felix's statements regarding the worship of a criminal and his cross.

Here is the argument as Mr. Doherty lays it out in his response to GakuseiDon at http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon-2.htm.

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.…

Actually, it’s “God� (deum), not “a god� (deus). Felix is bringing to their attention Christian belief, not pagan belief. But this is not a critical point.

Actually, Felix uses none of the words (hic, haec, hoc) that would convey “this.� We really don’t know whether he means “this criminal�; and we don’t know whether he means “this mortal�. He doesn’t even say “mortal� (homine mortali) but rather “earthly being� (potuisse terrenum).

If he had wanted to convey the interpretation of the Doherty model, Felix should have just said that “this� criminal was in fact a criminal, or that “this man� (both words of this phrase are absent here) was a criminal, and therefore not the Christian God.

Why say that a criminal doesn’t deserve to be worshipped as God? Why say that earthly beings cannot attain that worship? Does he say these things in order to rebuke other Christians who have made God out of a criminal and an earthly being? That certainly is the meaning of at least two statements in our thread here:

1) "he simply wants to deny that proper Christians would do such a thing as worship a crucified man and his cross"

2) “his brand of Christianity detested the idea of worshipping a chap who suffered at the cross [and it] rejected the idea that a man died and through that conferred salvation to those that remained.�

If these are Felix's thoughts, notice how he expresses them: “You are in error when you think that a criminal deserved to be worshipped as God.� Huh? Felix is not saying that they wrongly think a criminal deserved to be worshipped as God. Of course they don’t think that a criminal should be made into God. The calumny heaps scorn on this practice:

… 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.

Now, the calumny does not say that Christians worship this man as God. It says they worship what they deserve, i.e., the cross, which is meant for “reprobate and wicked men.� For that reason, Felix later says that Christians do not worship crosses. Let’s keep in mind that Felix wrote the calumny as it stands, so we don’t know for sure if pagans said that Christians worshipped a wicked crucified man as God. But if Felix is to be believed, pagans said that the man was wicked and that Christian ceremonies could be explained by reference to the man. What explanation would work except that the man was revered? Certainly, the wicked worshippers were not merely worshipping the cross, which they deserved; they were revering someone who cannot have been less wicked and deserving of the cross than they. And the idea of worshipping the man as God is found in the pagan mind, finally, because Felix later invokes it, in his words about criminals not deserving to be worshipped as God, when he wishes to disprove what the pagans are thinking.

Therefore, per the mythicist model, the pagans are in agreement with Felix when he says that criminals do not deserve to be believed God. His pagan audience does not believe that wicked men should be made into God. As I have argued, he is not even referring to what pagans make of wicked men, but to what Christians could possibly make of wicked men. He seems to presume not only that the pagans knew of this man being revered, but that they suspected this man of being called the one true God (deum).

Be that as it may, if Felix is rebuking these Christians here, and rejecting the idea of making a crucified man into a savior, he’s in agreement with his audience. Why is he telling them that they think a wicked man deserves to be worshipped as God?

Then he says they’re in error in thinking that earthly beings could ever attain regard as God. But obviously, if the Doherty model is correct, Felix is rebuking Christians who have given exactly that status to an earthly being. Disgracefully, they have turned someone who Felix considered to be no more than an earthly being, into God. Pagans would agree with Felix that doing so is foolish (the calumny, again, condemns the ceremonies suggesting such worship); and they agree with him that doing so would take people away from the neighborhood of truth. But Felix is supposedly rebuking these pagans, who agree with him, for thinking that such wrong-headed deification is ever done. Obviously, Christians were doing so. Merely observing that their man was believed God is not wrong-headed. What’s wrong-headed is the deification. Felix is being a terrible hypocrite here if he is rebuking a certain Christian practice and yet lambasting the pagans in the audience for simply noticing the practice; and he’s forgotten completely that these pagans, represented by Caecilius, have rebuked the practice already, in the calumny.

I suggest he would have confused his audience greatly, and possibly offended them, if he was telling them not to believe that criminals deserve to to worshipped as God.

In the historicist model, it makes sense for Felix to say that the deification is wrong-headed. Felix is simply saying that no true criminal could deserve the worship of God, and no true earthly being could actually come to be believed God. He goes onto to discuss how one kind of earthly being, a mortal man, comes to be regarded in Egypt as “a god� (deus).

I’ve demonstrated that they do serve the meaning which Don sees in the passage. The Egyptian remarks are another characteristic Christian contrast between God who is real and gods who are only men. Felix says the Egyptian man knows this deep down: he knows he’s just a man.

Such accusations should be withdrawn, and everyone on both sides should self-apply them whenever possible.

EarlDoherty

Because my time is short over the next couple of days, and because I want to focus on Minucius Felix, I’m going to shortchange Notsri and Ted on their queries relating to what I’ve said on the epistle to the Hebrews and Apollos in 1 Corinthians.

Notsri brings up Hebrews 7:14 and its reference to “our Lord descended from Judah.� This is one of a handful of passages in Hebrews which scholars usually regard as references to an earthly Jesus, which also includes 5:7’s offering up prayers with loud cries and tears “in the days of his flesh� and 13:12’s “Jesus suffered outside the gate.� For these two, I’ll refer Notsri to my website article:

A Sacrifice in Heaven

in which I point out that everything in Hebrews, including these references which I discuss in some detail, is essentially drawn from scripture, particularly the Sinai cult as described in Exodus and Leviticus. The reference to Jesus the High Priest being “of Judah� I covered in the previous article, No. 8, “Christ as ‘Man’: Does Paul Speak of Jesus as an Historical Person?�, but I will patch in that section here:

We might cast a comparative glance at Hebrews 7:14, which is another passage that speaks of Christ’s ‘racial’ lineage and which points toward scripture as the source:

For it is very evident (prodelon) that our Lord is sprung (anatetalken) from Judah, a tribe to which Moses made no reference in speaking of priests.

First of all, this statement is made in the midst of a theological argument, not a recounting of historical facts. The whole tenor of Hebrews is one of presenting Christ as a new High Priest, one who supplants the old cultic system which was run by the priestly class of the tribe of Aaron, the Levites. The writer finds Christ’s “archetype� in Melchizedek, who was also not a member of the Levites (what tribe he may have been is never stated). The point is, Christ must be of a new line in order to create a new order of priesthood.
And where does the writer find confirmation that the new High Priest is indeed of a different line than the Levites? How does he support this very necessary claim that Christ is “sprung from Judah�? Well, there is not a word spent in appealing to historical facts or apostolic traditions concerning Jesus of Nazareth, no reference to Mary or Joseph, no mention of his lineage as recounted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The word “prodelon� means “clear, manifest� to the senses or to judgment (compare 1 Timothy 5:24, 25); it does not mean “a matter of historical record.� It fits the sense of “clear to someone who knows the scriptures,� which in itself fits the thought world of the entire epistle.
The verb “anatellein,� to spring (by birth), is also the language of scripture. It is used in several messianic passages, such as Ezekiel 29:21 (“a horn shall spring forth�), and Zechariah 6:12. Hebrews pointedly never says that Jesus is a descendent or “son� of David; the latter is a figure the epistle shows no interest in. The author simply needs scriptural support for the concept of a priest arising from a tribe which has never “had anything to do with� the old cult (7:13), a priest who can establish a new law to supplant the impotent old one, and a new hope (7:18 and 19). And to confirm Jesus’ role as High Priest, the writer turns to nothing in history, he draws on no deed or saying from the story of Jesus’ life, but delves instead (7:17) into the timeless pages of scripture: “Thou art a priest forever, in the succession of Melchizedek.� This line from the all-important Psalm 110 he takes as God’s word to Jesus.
We might also note that “is sprung from� is in the perfect tense in the Greek, not a past-tense aorist, such as we might have expected had the writer meant: “Jesus of Nazareth was sprung from Judah.� Instead, he uses the perfect “has sprung� which fits the mythical outlook: such things have happened, but they are also eternal and timeless, just as scripture, the timeless word of God, continues to inform us of these spiritual events. Buchanan, in his Anchor Bible Commentary (Hebrews, p.253) admits that “the author may not have received the information from local tradition at all . . . (but) from his use of scripture.� Scripture: God’s ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world and its counterparts to earthly things.

Ted (M) has questioned my preference for an Apollos (of Alexandria) who not only did not preach an historical Jesus, but even denied that the Christ (if he used that term) was crucified in a mythical setting. In other words, he may have been a ‘mythicist’ like Paul in having an intermediary Son who was a Revealer of Wisdom (by which one gained perfection and salvation), but did not regard that Son as having been crucified (in the spiritual world). My argument on this is extensive, and can be found in my website article No. 1:

Apollos of Alexandria and the Early Christian Apostolate.

Having argued that, I do concede that on the surface, as Ted suggests, there would seem to be a certain degree of incompatibility between that fundamental difference in doctrine, and the rather soft-pedaled language Paul uses in regard to Apollos. But as I say in the article, Paul is desperate to win back his Corinthian congregation. He has neither history nor eyewitnesses to back him up, since he is not speaking of an historical event, and so Apollos and himself are on a level playing field. It would win him no sympathy from the readers he is trying to win back by attacking Apollos as some kind of son of Satan (as he does other rivals in 2 Corinthians 11), so he pulls his punches. But not all that much. His argument in 1:18-31 is pretty hard-hitting, as I argue that he is speaking of Apollos and his doctrine here. Then again, Ted quotes only the mild language from chapter 3 referring to Apollos, but a few verses later, though he doesn’t repeat Apollos’ name, his disdain and condemnation becomes quite clear: the quality of each one’s apostolic work will have to suffer the test of fire on the day of judgment, and “anyone who destroys God’s temple will himself be destroyed by God.� That’s not too far from calling his rival satanic.

Anyway, I prefer to give weight to the negative side of Paul’s language and implications through chapters 1 and 3, and put down the more positive aspects to Paul doing his best to restrain himself and not ruin his chances with the fickle Corinthians. They both preach a Son and Christ, and Apollos’ tradition, coming out of Philonic Alexandria is a strongly based and respected one. Paul can come in with some new ideas, but he can’t charge in and throw his weight around as though everyone else is full of crap. This may be a good example of Paul’s diplomacy, something he wasn’t always or consistently able to project.

Here I do have to disagree, and strongly. You meet this argument often. “Preaching another Jesus� has to encompass a sea change more than just the question of whether Gentile converts have to follow the Jewish Law. Even the phrase itself makes no sense in that context. How can demanding circumcision or dietary laws be “preaching another Jesus�, especially when no one appeals to Jesus own teachings or examples to settle such questions. In Galatians Paul is critical of Peter & James over this question, and he throws in a few digs about their “importance,� but he hardly accuses them of “masquerading as apostles of Christ� with links to Satan, who “will meet the end their deeds deserve� as he does to unnamed rivals in 1 Cor. 11. Once again appealing to one of my favorite “orthodox� NT scholars, C. K. Barrett, he quite clearly rejects the standard interpretation of the 2 Cor. passage as referring to the Jerusalem group. The language is just too extreme.

The “another Jesus� doesn’t refer to an historical Christ, vs. Paul’s mythical one, it refers to a different interpretation of the divine intermediary Son derived from revelation and scripture, as 2 Cor. 11:4 makes clear. And one of those differences of interpretation of such a spiritual figure can be seen in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians, a Revealer Christ vs. a crucified one.

That's all I have time for today. I'll try to squeeze in a reply to Krosero's further posts tomorrow and get back to our good friend Felix.

Discussion of "another Jesus" has been split into a separate thread here

Vorkosigan

Perhaps if you don't understand the debate, it would be well to refrain from comment and see instead what there is to learn. If you have any questions you can PM me and I will be glad to help you out. A good place to start is Doherty's Jesus Puzzle Website.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Just on this: I don't have any problems with being accused of "atomistic" or "apologetic" practises. They're certainly no worse than what I've accused Earl of. I think it comes down to the arguments themselves, and how the participants debate. I have no complaints about how Earl has been presenting his arguments against my rebuttals. (It goes without saying that I believe his arguments are wrong and mine are right! )

Ted Hoffman

krosero,
It shouldn't. "Myth" in this context is used in the sense of "legend" or a tale.
"Christian story" is either (1) a story about some element of Christianity or (2) a story told by Christians.
I will assume you are meaning (2) since pagans, wrt (1), can "present Christ as wicked."

It appears that some Christians, as far as Felix was concerned, maintained that Christ was good even as everyone else, including Felix, believed that Christ was wicked and was crucified for his wickedness. This could be according to what actually happened, or it could be according to the stories that were floating around about some criminal and his cross: MF does not say.

It is likely that Felix had his own "Christian story" (maybe a logos-centric one) that was devoid of Jesus, and therefore he may not have been interested in defending a version of Christianity that he himself rejected.

Possible.
Perhaps.
He is defending his brand of Christianity. He is distancing himself from HJ Christians. This should be very clear.
He doesnt say. Look, these are secondary issues that simply invite us to speculate. The primary issue is that Felix was a Christian who rejected a HJ. This means that there were Christians who believed in something else other than a HJ. Since Felix rejects the concept of godmen, whatever he believed (as a saviour/deity/redeemer) was not a flesh-and-blood man.
That is what is important for the mythicist case.
Does MF say that the wicked man was called Christ? Theophilus does not link the attribution "Christian" to "Christ". What this means is that this matter you raise is actually a non-issue.
He designates him as Christ?
Plus, you are assuming that the gospels had reached MF's neighbourhood. We have no reason to believe that.
He walked around with a gang of 12 rugged, half-witted illiterate men who abandoned their families and ate with dirty hands and he cavorted with societal rejects like tax collectors and he violated the sabbath. Heck, he said he came to divide families, never married and was found with a naked young man with his gang of twelve men... You never had of the young man who fled naked? from their embrace
Is that bad?
Not to MF. And certainly not strange to me and Doherty.
Sorry that you feel perplexed. Imposed interpretations of MF cannot curtail the correct understanding of his writings.
Probable.
Incorrect. A man cannot become a god. MF literally beats the pagans accoss the head with this.
And the mythicist interpretation of his statements are?
It also makes sense that they read into Felix whatever they chose and therefore they found it innocuous.
What evidence did GDon give for claiming that MF inspired Tertullian?
Good question. Over to you GDon.
Except, Felix does no such thing: he offers no supervening qualification (over and above the euhemerized Egyptian gods) to any man behind Christianity.
Let me know if you have additional questions.
Your succeeding post appears inattentive to the notion that MF was presenting his own brand of Christianity. That is the argument and I hope your next post recognizes it, even if not agreeing with it.

GakuseiDon

Earl Doherty, "Jesus Puzzle", Ch 25: "... Tertullian, writing his aplogy around the year 200 and borrowing, or at least using as inspiration, parts of the work of Minucius Felix."

I'm actually agnostic on who borrowed from whom. But either way, I see it as a problem for Earl's views on M Felix.

I think it is a good question, too. Thanks, Ted! As I said above, either way, I can only see it as a problem for Earl's views.

krosero

It's clear now.

That he is saying, "Those men worship a wicked man."

I suggested the belief that the Logos, or the "god", became a man, not the other way around. There may be something in Felix's dialogue which says that a god cannot become a man, but if so, it will have to be demonstrated that such a statement does not refer to the pagan gods that Felix rejected and does in fact refer to the Logos. Frankly, Felix does not believe that the pagan deities exist, and so he's not going to discuss the idea that they could become men. The only reality, for him, was God, or the Logos. Does he say that God, or the Logos, can't become a man?

Silences are problems, with some possible solutions. Right now Doherty's interpretation is striking me as not just having problems, but nonsensical, right in the location we're talking about, the "smoking gun" passage. So I put in a disproof, of which you wrote:

Certainly it's an axiom that MF was presenting the version of Christianity that he adhered to. I know you meant something more, that he was presenting his form of Christianity over and against another form (and actually rebuking it in the "smoking gun" passage), but that hardly seems established to me. It's a general theory about his writings, with quotes or silences backing it up. 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.

You can take a crack at my disproof, though my thoughts on Felix's work are still changing. If you believe with Doherty that Caecilius really was thinking that criminals deserve to be deified and that earthly beings can be deified, I may agree with you. So you may want to pay attention instead to my next post.

krosero

As I read more of Felix’s dialogue, I am less certain that he and his pagan audience would have agreed on the foolishness of turning criminals and earthly beings into God. My first disproof was based on that agreement. Doherty has them disagreeing; but as it happens, his interpretation of the “smoking gun� passage can still be disproved. I’ll get to that in a second.

One reason I’m less certain of the agreement is that pagans did deify earthly beings. I’m not sure they would have said that criminals deserved to be God, but Octavius certainly seems to think that Caecilius has expressed such thoughts in his calumny. Regardless, Felix’s argument flows better if he is saying, in agreement with Doherty, that pagans do have such thoughts about criminals. Let me paraphrase.

“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.�

So why does this still not support Doherty’s contention that Felix was rebuking criminal-worshipping Christians? It comes down to the fact that per 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.

Doherty’s Felix agrees that the crucified man was both wicked and revered in Christian ceremonies. His 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, 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.