Minucius Felix denies the crucifixion and incarnation

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

I brought up the subject of Minucius Felix, he is a very interesting case - he explicitly DENIES that the crucifixion and incarnation are Christian beliefs.

But,
his prose is extremely turgid and it can be difficult to follow, yet it seems clear to me that he is arguing for a Christianity that does NOT believe in an incarnated Jesus who was crucified.

I have spent the whole day posting, its getting late, so I will give Earl's excellent case on the subject (Minucious Felix' words are in italics).


Earl Doherty wrote : "

Octavius' Christianity revolves around the Unity and Providence of God and the rejection of all pagan deities, the resurrection of the body and its future reward or punishment. In regard to the latter, no appeal is made to Jesus' own resurrection as proof of God's ability and intention to resurrect the dead. Not even in answer to the challenge (11):
"What single individual has returned from the dead, that we might believe it for an example?"

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

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

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

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

In ridiculing the Greek myths about the deaths of their gods, such as Isis lamenting over the dismembered Osiris, he says (22):
"Is it not absurd to bewail what you worship, or worship what you bewail?"

In other words, he is castigating the Greeks for lamenting and worshiping a god who is slain. Later he says (23):
"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

He then goes on to ridicule the whole idea of gods procreating themselves, which would include the idea of a god begetting a son. Elsewhere (20) he scorns those who are credulous enough to believe in miracles performed by gods.

How, without any saving qualification, could a Christian put such arguments forward, since they would confute and confound essential Christian beliefs in his own mind, and leave himself open to the charge of hypocrisy? It is one thing for the puzzled commentator to claim that silences in the apologists are due to a desire not to discourage or irritate the pagans with long and confusing theological treatises on subjects they are prejudiced against, or because they are not aiming to provide a comprehensive picture of the faith. But when an apologist makes statements which flatly contradict and even calumnize ideas which should be at the very heart of his own beliefs and personal devotion, such explanations are clearly discredited.

And how does Minucius Felix deal with the accusation that Christians worship a crucified man and his cross? As he did in Caecilius' diatribe, the author inserts his response into the midst of his refutation of other calumnies about incestuous banquets and adoration of a priest's genitals. Here is the manner and context in which he deals with the charge of worshiping a crucified criminal (29):

"1These 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. 2Moreover (nam), when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth in thinking that a criminal deserved, or that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as God. 3Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his (the latter's) death . . . ."

Before going on, we should first note that verse 2, following as it does on the sentiments of verse 1 (which the Latin word nam emphasizes), makes it clear that the writer regards this accusation as being in the same vein as the other "indecencies" he is at pains to refute. And what is the refutation he provides? It is to heap scorn on those who would believe that a crucified criminal, a mortal, should be thought of as a god. Where is the necessary qualification that no Christian could surely have remained silent on? Where is the saving defence that in fact this crucified man was not a mortal, but was indeed God? Some claim that this is what Minucius is implying, but such an implication is so opaque, it can only be derived from reading it into the text. Octavius' words certainly do not contain it, although they do imply that the writer knows of some Christians who believe such things, but he has no sympathy with them.

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

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

Minucius goes on in this passage to cite the folly of heathen peoples who do "choose a man for their worship," but he makes no such admissions for Christians. As to the accusation of worshiping crosses, he says dismissively: "We do not adore them, nor do we wish for them." And he goes on to admonish the pagan for being guilty of using signs of crosses in their own worship and everyday life. There is not a hint that for Minucius the cross bears any sacred significance or requires defending in a Christian context.

From this refutation of the calumny of Jesus and his cross, he proceeds ("Next . . .") to challenge those who accuse Christians of the slaughter of children. There is nothing in the way Minucius has dealt with the supposed heart of the Christian faith to differentiate it from all these surrounding horrors. The disparaging tone is unredeemed.

One commentator, H. J. Baylis (Minucius Felix, p.148), in addition to expressing his regret that the writer has been so silent in defending the person of Christ, also laments the fact that he missed a golden opportunity to refute the charge about licentious feasts and cannabilistic initiation rites by describing the Eucharist. He could have defended, says Baylis, the sacramental significance and pure conduct of this Christian agape (love feast) over Jesus' body and blood. Baylis finds it equally "odd" that in speaking of the sources of the "truth about the Godhead" (38), Minucius is silent on the teachings of Jesus himself, or Jesus' own status as Son within that Godhead.

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


Those who are capable of letting historical documents say what they obviously seem to be saying will recognize that Minucius Felix is a true 'smoking gun' pointing to a Christian denial of the historical Jesus. Even though this document indicates that there were others within the movement who believed in such a figure, and that there were historical Jesus traditions circulating, this does not automatically validate the historicity of such a figure, especially as the author is writing no earlier than the mid-second century. But the key consideration is this: such a denial as Minucius Felix voices would hardly have been possible within the context of a movement which had actually begun with an historical Jesus, and so we can say that this document does indeed provide strong evidence of the non-existence of this figure.


To the dispassionate eye, Minucius Felix is one Christian who will have no truck with those, in other circles of his religion, who profess the worship of a Jesus who was crucified in Judea under the governorship of Pontius Pilate, rumors of which have reached pagan ears and elicited much scorn and condemnation. To claim that a whole generation of apologists would falsely convey such an exterior to those they are seeking to win over, that they would deliberately indulge in this kind of Machiavellian deception, is but one of the desperate measures which modern Christian scholars have been forced to adopt in their efforts to deal with a Christian record that stubbornly refuses to paint the picture they all want to see. " (endquote Earl Doherty)

Iasion
(Quentin)

[Andrew]

Just thought I'd mention JP gives Earl Doherty a thorough thrashing on his site:
http://www.tektonics.org/TK-D.html

[spl_cadet]

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

Watch, as context blows a hole in his argument. If you look at chapter 9 you also find this sentence "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."

So what exactly does he reject? The bolded part. The idea that Christ died for His "wickedness."

In ridiculing the Greek myths about the deaths of their gods, such as Isis lamenting over the dismembered Osiris, he says (22):
"Is it not absurd to bewail what you worship, or worship what you bewail?"

1. Isis and Osiris were Egyptian gods not Greek.
2. That sentence isn't in chapter 22.

In other words, he is castigating the Greeks for lamenting and worshiping a god who is slain. Later he says (23):
"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) . . . Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

Context people. He's referring to a mortal being born mortal and then becoming a god. As for the second part of the quote, he's ridiculing the Greek mythology. Extended quote states "unless, perchance, Jupiter has already grown old, and child-bearing has failed in Juno, and Minerva has grown grey before she has borne children."

It is to heap scorn on those who would believe that a crucified criminal, a mortal, should be thought of as a god.

Correct. And if you would bother to learn Christian theology, you would know that to say that isn't to deny the crucifixion.

Minucius goes on in this passage to cite the folly of heathen peoples who do "choose a man for their worship," but he makes no such admissions for Christians.

That's because we don't choose a man for our worship. You might wish to learn context: "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"

One commentator, H. J. Baylis (Minucius Felix, p.148), in addition to expressing his regret that the writer has been so silent in defending the person of Christ, also laments the fact that he missed a golden opportunity to refute the charge about licentious feasts and cannabilistic initiation rites by describing the Eucharist. He could have defended, says Baylis, the sacramental significance and pure conduct of this Christian agape (love feast) over Jesus' body and blood. Baylis finds it equally "odd" that in speaking of the sources of the "truth about the Godhead" (38), Minucius is silent on the teachings of Jesus himself, or Jesus' own status as Son within that Godhead.

That's because this is a simple "defend Christianity from the idiots" work, not a theological expansion.

[stevencarrwork]

03-10-2003 @ 02:14 PM
spl_cadet:

He's referring to a mortal being born mortal and then becoming a god.


That's because we don't choose a man for our worship.

Christian doctrine (ask Cardinal Ratzinger) is that Jesus was fully human. Therefore, you have chosen a man for your worship.

As for Jesus not being born mortal, he died. That is what mortal means.

You are quite right that Felix is ridiculing the idea of a god being born 'Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?' Felix, even though he was a Christian , laughed at the idea of a god being born.

[spl_cadet]

03-10-2003 @ 01:12 PM
stevencarrwork:
Christian doctrine (ask Cardinal Ratzinger) is that Jesus was fully human. Therefore, you have chosen a man for your worship.

He was also fully God. And what the Egyptians were doing is basically going "Hey you! You're god now!" Bit different from what we did.

As for Jesus not being born mortal, he died. That is what mortal means.

I'm using it in the context of not being God.

You are quite right that Felix is ridiculing the idea of a god being born 'Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?' Felix, even though he was a Christian , laughed at the idea of a god being born.

In the Greek mythology. He's laughing at the fact that they had kids, but these supposed immortals don't have them anymore.

[timfivewise]

In the religious and spiritual crisis that was the early Roman Empire (resultant from the clash of an implicitly secularizing hellenism and a newly common exposure to a multitude of relatively local or parochial gods, religions and customs), I have never found it unusual that early Christianity also reflected that same, at times almost chaotic, diversity-- even confusion.

For instance, some ancient Christian movements developed a multitude of seemingly non-‘biblical’ notions regarding the divinity (or not) of Christ. Most of these movements claimed the same roots and most of the same scripture.

So how could they doctrinally diverge ***from the same initial organization*** so quickly and definitively?

Similarly, how can modern ‘demoninations and religions movements so quickly diverge and differ from one another; Quakers, Shakers, revivals, orthodox reactions, Mormans, various resurgences of unitarianism, etc..., all within a relatively brief period *** but all from the same or similar doctrinal and cultural roots.

Now consider the primitive Gospel's early and emphatic ‘evangelical imperative’ to ‘spread the Gospel to all the world’.

My point is that Christianity often, or sometimes, is more relevantly seen as a relatively popular ***movement***, not as an ordered and organized institutional development.

I do street ministy, on and off, in a part of the country that is ***not*** culturally Christian. Down at that level it can get pretty theologically ‘hairy’ pretty fast. I've seen people not affiliated with us both teach (or attempt to) and misinterpret some very unusual ‘gospels’ ***while claiming to be one of us or claiming to be teaching the same gospel***.

But who is teaching, and who is interpreting? Addicts, buddhists, wiccans, goths, sometimes hear our words and do what they may with them. Sometimes a man or boy who just himself heard immediately goes to tell a friend who tells another.

Do you get the picture? Experientially, at the street level, there can be theological anarchy and misunderstanding (both unintentional and ***intentional***) until mentoring and sound teaching establish themselves.


And that mentoring always only follows, later, with those in whom the Word has taken root. But even with these new ‘converts’, it seems to take them months or years to really get their ‘theology’ straight. Meanwhile, they can't readily be stopped from sharing with family and friends.

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

So what exactly does he reject? The bolded part. The idea that Christ died for His "wickedness."

Rubbish.
This is YOUR belief imposed on his writing.
There is NOTHING in the work which supports your view that he is rejecting ONLY the issue of "wickedness" or being a "criminal"

This distinction YOU are forced to make because you cannot face the implications - that here is a genuine early Christian father who argues that the crucixifion and the incarnation are NOT true Christian beliefs. You are forced to bold certain parts in order to bolster your claim, which is unsupported by any evidence.

You have not produced any evidence that Felix is making a distinction about Jesus not being a "criminal" executed for his "wickedness", because there IS no such evidence - such a distinction is only in your mind.

Furthermore,
your posts show no understanding of what "context" actually means.

Felix is listing and dismissing all the FALSE things said about Christians, he criticises these false ideas in disparaging terms.

He explicity dismisses the the whole crucifixion idea as a false belief, and he uses disparaging terms for it, such as the term "criminal".

There is nothing in his words to support your view at all, and it flies in the face of his words and his tone. He nowhere says anything like your words, that Jesus was NOT a criminal e.g.

And if you would bother to learn Christian theology, you would know that to say that isn't to deny the crucifixion.

What does LATER Christian beliefs have to do with it? Felix says NOTHING to support your view, but his very words speak directly AGAINST your views.

His disparaging comments about Gods being born is clear - he dismisses the entire idea that a God could be born physically. None of your bluster about later Christian dogma has any bearing at all.

Felix clearly rubbishes the whole idea of crucifixion and incarnation in blunt and crude terms - the mere fact that modern Christian dogma expresses things a little differently from his words means nothing.


From his comments we can clearly see :

* M.Felix has heard it said that some Christians believe in a incarnation, and crucixifion of a God.

* M.Felix explicitly rubbishes and denies that the crucifixion and the incarnation are true Christian beliefs.


This is clear and present evidence that many early Christians, even as late as mid 2nd century, did NOT see the incarnation and the crucifixion as Christian beliefs.


Iasion

[roger_pearse]

From his comments we can clearly see :

* M.Felix has heard it said that some Christians believe in a incarnation, and crucixifion of a God.

* M.Felix explicitly rubbishes and denies that the crucifixion and the incarnation are true Christian beliefs.

I do not find anything in Minucius Felix which says this. There is half a sentence which says that Christians do not deify a crucified criminal. As is, indeed, the case. We worship a god who became man and was crucified.

At all events, Caecilius knows very well who Jesus was! Octavius is simply evading the sneer about the status of the founder.

Minucius is making use of Tertullian's Apologeticum, and behind his sentence is probably something like this:

"Then, too, the common people have now some knowledge of Christ, and think of Him as but a man, one indeed such as the Jews condemned, so that some may naturally enough have taken up the idea that we are worshippers of a mere human being." (21:3)

This is clear and present evidence that many early Christians, even as late as mid 2nd century, did NOT see the incarnation and the crucifixion as Christian beliefs.

I didn't quite see how one dubious phrase -- not even a clear sentence becomes 'many'.

The date of Minucius Felix is uncertain -- however, it is not permissible to claim him for the second century and then base something on that decision. If a decision must be made, he must be dated to the third century. But in fact he should be left open at between 160-250-ish.

Notes on MF:

http://www.tertullian.org/minucius/mf.htm

All the best,

Roger Pearse