With the drums rolling, Doherty informs us that he has "left until last the most fascinating of all the apologies, a document which could well be called a 'smoking gun'." Such excitement we might suppose left for the discovery of Nixon's lost 17 1/2 minutes; but these words are applied to a passage from a work called Octavius, authored by one Minucius Felix. Doherty describes this work: "It takes the form of a debate between Caecilius, a pagan, and Octavius, a Christian, chaired and narrated by the author, Minucius Felix, by whose name the work is now usually referred to."

Before anything else, there is a matter to address which may make the whole point moot: Octavius may be reckoned to have been dependent on one or more works of Tertullian. As Doherty explains (and responds):

There has been a long and seesaw debate as to when Minucius Felix was written. A clear literary relationship exists with Tertullian's much longer Apology, written around the year 200. But who borrowed from whom? A good general rule says that the later writer tends to expand on what the earlier writer wrote, not chop drastically, especially since in this case it would mean that Minucius Felix had cut out many important Christian dogmas and every single reference to the Gospel Jesus-and this, well into the third century, when no one else had any qualms about speaking of such things. This and other arguments considered, the earlier dating between 150 and 160 is much preferable.

• Re "a good general rule" - this is actually a rather silly rule, one promulgated almost solely by biblical critics wedded to pre-determined notions of evolution in thought, rather than by literary critics. As we have noted elsewhere, this sort of simple/complex dichotomy does not even bear out under the presumed development of the synoptic tradition. Indeed, if this were a "good general rule" it would force us to suppose that all Reader's Digest condensed books were written first.
• Re cutting important Christian dogmas, and the third century - all of this presumes that our author did not have some specific purpose in mind, or that he was a carbon copy of all other third century writers. Knowing so little in both cases makes this sort of argument hazardous as well as presumptuous.
• Finally, since Doherty has made a point of it elsewhere, he ought to know that he is bucking ancient opinion in this regard. Jerome has informed us that Tertullian wrote his works first.

Another paragraph goes on to point out that Jesus' resurrection is not offered as proof "in answer to the challenge (11): 'What single individual has returned from the dead, that we might believe it for an example?' " Once again, the context indicates a desire for a living specimen, not harkening back to the resurrection of Jesus and begging the question. We pick up with these extended words:

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...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?

Partly paraphrased? Let's try, "Significantly edited." A full accounting of what is written in this passage shows not precisely "disreputable accusations which need to be refuted" but "half-truths mixed with disreputable accusations that need to be refuted." In all but the case of the allusion to Jesus, Doherty has eliminated the "truthful" half of the accusations, though whether intentionally or not I obviously cannot say. Let's look at a much more informative version of this passage, although I shall not go to the length that Doherty has in the text:

And now, as wickeder things advance more fruitfully, and abandoned manners creep on day by day, those abominable shrines of an impious assembly are maturing themselves throughout the world. Assuredly this confederacy ought to be rooted out and execrated. They know one another by secret marks and insignia, and they love one another almost before they know one another. Everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes. Nor, concerning these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and various, and requiring to be prefaced by an apology, unless truth were at the bottom of it. I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion, - a worthy an appropriate religion for such manners. Some say that they worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; 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 story about the initiation of young 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.

So this passage consist of far more than just "a litany of ridiculous and unspeakable calumnies" - what we have here is a mixture of lies, half-truths and misinterpretations of fact. It is probably true that "They know one another by secret marks and insignia"; we know of precautions taken by Christians to avoid persecution that match this charge. But our critic has simply assumed a different purpose for this caution. "They love one another almost before they know one another" would be true, as is the use of "brother" and "sister" - it is the sexual aspect that is the calumny. The worship of the asses' head is a complete falsity, derived from similar calumnies against the Jews. The worship of the priests' genitals probably comes from seeing worshippers kneel before the priest at the altar; this is a misrepresentation. And so it goes: The point being that Doherty's classification of all of these things, and the idea that "this reference to a crucified man is to be regarded as in any way different from the rest of the items" does not take into account the varied nature of the accusations and the fact that nearly all of them have some degree of truth behind them. He cannot simply classify all of these accusations as ridiculous calumnies, fully in need of refutation, complete lies from the get-go, although he made a valiant try in doing so by making only selective quotes from the passage and/or not explaining the background of the accusations. The "crucified man" accusation is merely a truth with a negative spin on it.

So the argument of the critic provides no support for Doherty's position, but his "smoking gun" as it were is found in the reply by Octavius. But first a few preliminaries. Doherty brings up three passages in this work of which he asks:

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 totally discredited.

Do these three arguments actually "confute and confound" Christian belief? Let's have a look:

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 worshipping a god who is slain.

The context of this passage would tell us more, but there is really no need to look at it: Even if Octavius is castigating the Greeks for this belief, it has no relevance to Christians, for since Jesus rose from the dead, they do not "bewail" him at all! This argument does not counter Christian belief in the slightest. On to #2 -

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.

As before, context matters: Our writer in ridiculing specifically the "dirty old gods" like Jupiter who copulated like animals; he then goes on in this section to denigrate idols. This is an orange to the Christian apple. Finally -

Elsewhere (20) he scorns those who are credulous enough to believe in miracles performed by gods.

Actually, what our writer ridicules is SPECIFIC miracles and tales, such as reports of mythical creatures (like the Hydra) and men being changed into beasts and birds. He makes no statement against belief in miracles as a whole. Each of these three passages cited by Doherty is irrelevant.

But now to Doherty's "Big Bertha." He begins by quoting Octavius' response to "the accusation that Christians worship a crucified man and his cross":

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. Moreover (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. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his (the latter's) death. . .

Of this, he says:

...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? Octavius certainly does not provide it, yet the language here implies that the writer knows of some Christians who do believe such things, but he has no sympathy with them.

Actually, the language here implies no such thing, but let us pause for a moment. Most will suspect that the answer here is that Jesus was, by implication of this argument, neither criminal nor mere man, but God. But Doherty is aware of this answer, and says:

It is amusing to find the translator of this work in the 19th century collection of Ante-Nicene Fathers including 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 to verse 2 the translator offers this wishful footnote: "A reverent allusion to the Crucified, believed in and worshipped as God." What one cannot believe is missing, one will read into the text, no matter what.

Indeed, as is proven by the works of Earl Doherty and countless other Christ-mythicists. But is such an idea to be "found nowhere" in the text? In point of fact, it is found, by quite direct and inescapable implication. In the section following, Doherty notes, our writer "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." Indeed not: The folly is specifically that of the Egyptians, who "choose out a man for themselves whom they may worship" - one 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." Octavius is arguing against a human who takes the role of a god, knowing that he is not divine, and this was not the case with Jesus by any account.

But, our critic will and has argued: "Where is the saving defence that in fact this crucified man was not a mortal, but was indeed God?" It is buried, quite simply, under the folly of crucifixion. As Hengel notes [Heng.Cx, 4]:

Octavius cannot deny the shamefulness of the cross...he is deliberately silent about the death of Jesus...(his) evasion of the point indicates the dilemma which all too easily led educated Christians into docetism.

Now of course, we know how Doherty would respond to this: He appeals to later apologists who had no qualms about the cross. He notes the work of Arnobius, c. 300 AD, saying that this apologist:

..was in no way reluctant or dishonest in admitting (the crucifixion), 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). In the case of Minucius Felix, can we really believe that any Christian apologist would be capable of this degree of-even 'apparent'-denial?

In point of fact, we can. Felix and Arnobius are not clones, but individuals, and Arnobius was (as well can tell from even the above) a much bolder personality than usual, in the spirit of Justin and Paul. The time and relative amount of persecution has nothing to do with it; even today Christians vary in their boldness in witnessing to the life they have gained from their Lord, and some in America, though they face no more persecution than a withering stare, are (to their shame) among those who hide the Lord in their heart. On the other hand, some of the boldest witnessers are found in places like China and Saudi Arabia, where proselytizations equal death! So would "any Christian apologist" be capable of such denial? Absolutely - and I daresay we have our own modern and more severe parallels in preachers of the "health and wealth" prosperity gospels who cannot come to grips with a Jesus who lived as an impoverished Galileean peasant. Such "apparent denial" is not impossible or unbelievable at all, and in fact, the "persecution factor" as a rule seems to have the opposite effect from that which Doherty implies!

We are then treated to a brief comment on the fact that Felix "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." This is only half-true: Felix clarifies that Christians neither worship nor wish for crosses, and what he goes on to criticize is pagan worship of wooden idols, from which crosses can be made. He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the charge from his opponent, not defending the sacred significance of the cross, which at any rate would have the same "folly roadblock" as the crucifixion.

This is followed upon by a great deal of repetitious polemicizing, and this closing statement:

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.

Indeed? What we truly have is not desperate Christian scholars, but a waving away of the social context of the second-century apologists. He who admonishes us to let documents "speak for themselves" is one who has rather allowed the documents to speak for his theory of a non-historical Jesus, irregardless of their context.

|

Conclusion: In the Great Why and Why

Doherty goes on to suggest again that the SCAs, being "versed in a wide range of ancient knowledge, in the intricate subtleties of contemporary philosophy,' could therefore "design careful and elaborate pieces of apologetic writing" that need not have contained "such devastating omissions and weaknesses as we have seen in Minucius Felix, in Theophilus, in Athenagoras, in Tatian". Doherty has failed to show how this is so, for he has severely underestimated the folly of the cross in Roman eyes. Intricate subtleties are no defense against hardened prejudice and preconceived notions entrenched for generations, as the folly-filled history of humanity amply demonstrates.

At the end of Minucius Felix the writer has his pagan character converted to Christianity. But what is the use of converting someone like Caecilius to a religion which has had all its essential elements concealed? When Caecilius arrives 'on the morrow' for his first lesson as a catechumen, will Octavius say to him, 'Oh, by the way, there were a few details I left out yesterday.' If a Christian is going to appeal to a pagan according to philosophical and logical principles, how will he then turn around and subsequently present the Christian mysteries and dogmas which he must be aware go counter to such principles? His own argumentation will then be in danger of being turned against him. And his dishonesty will place himself and his faith in a dishonorable light.

And this, no doubt, is one reason who such apologies were scrapped. But then again, if Doherty thinks that Felix is being anything but tendentious here, he does not read very well. Consider how our writer closes the debate, prior to reporting Caecilius' conversion:

When Octavius had brought his speech to a close, for some time we were struck into silence, and held our countenances fixed in attention; and as for me, I was lost in the greatness of my admiration, that he had so adorned those things which it is easier to feel than to say, both by arguments and by examples, and by authorities derived from reading; and that he had repelled the malevolent objectors with the very weapons of the philosophers with which they are armed, and had moreover shown the truth not only as easy, but also as agreeable.

Good old Octavius - he eats raw nails for lunch! Next he'll be walking on water. See him smash the skeptics! Let me put this succinctly, with due respect to all parties: The Octavius is about as convincing as a Chick tract, and while those indeed have their share of converts, even among the lower-level and literate intelligentsia such as Felix was, the bottom line is that they and Octavius are little more than emotion-strapping propaganda pieces which would be given no truck by high-level intelligentsia like Galen and Celsus who would rip it to shreds. On this level, I daresay Felix was hardly cognizant of how easily, indeed, his arguments could be turned against him. Being an advocate, rather than a theologian or philosopher, he was probably in no position to know better.

A few amusing footnotes to our study in closing: "It must be stressed that nowhere in the literature of the time is there support for the standard scholarly rationalization about the apologists' silence on the figure of Jesus. Nowhere is it discussed or even intimated that these writers have in fact deliberately left out the essential elements of Christian faith in their defences of it, for reasons of political correctness or anything else." Well, it would kind of defeat the purpose if they said something about a topic that they were trying to be silent about, wouldn't it? Again: The issue is not "political correctness or anything else"; the issue is a disgraceful and shameful execution of a convicted seditionist, whom the Christians were obliged to present as the true Son of God, and the clear social evidence on the matter. If Doherty thinks that clever arguments would stop the Romans on this point, I'd like to see some of them put forward; more so would I like to see him engage the defense with his own life on the line. We are reminded that "Tertullian indulges in no such cryptic concealment. In his own day, the hostility to Christianity was no easier than it had been a generation earlier when Felix wrote, or a mere two decades since Athenagoras and Theophilus had penned their defences." Yes indeed, but Tertullian is Tertullian, not Athenagoras or Theophilus, and each writer had his own methods, his own fears, and his own reaction to the spectre of persecution - just as there is a wide range of human reaction to crisis today. One man in a financial crisis buckles down and tries to fix the problem; another puts a gun to his head and commits suicide at once. Where is Doherty's conception of the diversity of human psychology? "Apparently, if we believe the commentators, the bulk of the second century apologists possessed no such conviction, no such courage" as Tertullian did. And so perhaps they did not: And likewise the courageous among us have always been few and far between, else they would not gain any recognition for their deeds. Finally, Doherty supposes that some of Tertullian's comments are a "veiled condemnation" of folks like Felix who hid under the covers. This may be so, but I really doubt it. Brave as Tertullian was, he would not hesitate to name names. The sword cuts both ways.

There is also the expected note of conspiracy:

As a final note, we might ask: where are the writers (for we might expect there to be some) who openly and in unmistakable words reject the figure of Jesus, with no possibility of ambiguity? Until we realize that no such document would ever have reached us through 2000 years of Christian censorship. For probably the same reason, we possess no pagan writing which discusses the case for rejection of the historical Jesus. Even Celsus (who does not do this) survives only piecemeal in Origen's great refutation of him. On the other hand, it is likely that even leading pagan thinkers like Celsus would have had no way to verify or disprove the circulating Christian story and narrative accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, nor the exegetical tools and abilities to disprove Christian claims through a study of the documents themselves. In any case, all of these documents, given the poor state of communication and availability of materials, would hardly have been accessible to someone who might think of undertaking such a task.

No documents doubting Jesus? No problem - they were all destroyed! And anyway, the pagans were too ignorant to figure out they were being bamboozled! One is reminded here of the old joke about the painter who presented a blank canvas as "A Cow Eating Grass." Where was the grass, he was asked? The cow ate it, he said. Then where was the cow? Why, there was no grass, so surely you didn't expect the poor cow to hang around, did you? In the same way, Doherty's scholarship may be recognized for what it is: Stretched facts keyholed into a strained theory; begged questions, and a blank canvas presented as a substantial and masterful work of art.

Finally, a few notes on two writers prior to the SCAs who cause Doherty's thesis particular dyspepsia. First, the Apostolic Father Ignatius, who wrote around 110-125 AD and in his letters "urges belief in the historicity of the bare details of a life of Jesus, including that he was born of a mother named Mary and that he died at the hands of Pilate." These remarks are normally regarded as a response to docetic tendencies of the sort Hengel notes; Doherty responds by saying that "There are good arguments, which some scholars support, for rejecting that these particular statements are part of an 'anti-docetic' stance." What these arguments are, and which scholars make them, is left strangely unsaid and uncited. "The fact that Ignatius never appeals to any Gospel as proof of these historical details is sufficient to establish that he knew of none, and this scholars generally admit." Actually, this is sufficient proof only of a modern writer once again presuming modern methods of citation on his ancient subjects; and if we wish to play this game, then let us say that the fact that Doherty never appeals to any scholar as proof of this interpretation of Ignatius is sufficient to establish that he knows of none. The sword, again, cuts both ways. Finally on Ignatius, it is said: "The one Gospel-like scene he does draw on (Smyrneans 3), to prove Jesus' resurrection in flesh, is not identified as coming from a Gospel and would constitute a very inaccurate rendering of a Lukan or Johannine passage." I find it to be a quite reasonably accurate conflation of Lukan and Johannine passages, and certainly not particularly problematic in the context of an era where precise quotation was a practice generally limited to grammarians.

Second, the Epistle of Barnabas, usually dated 115-120 AD. We are told that "Barnabas (unlike Ignatius) spells out that it is scripture itself which provides details of Christ's life, a life he does seem to set in an unspecified historical past." Hardly less specific than thousands of other documents of this type from the ancients; are we not always told of this sort of restriction on the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion? Does Doherty fill his own personal correspondence with niggling details already familiar to his readers? How about some specific examples for this argument? "In 5:3...Barnabas praises God for giving information about the past through scripture, implying that this is the sole source for such information." Barnabas implies no such thing; he says that "we ought to be deeply grateful to the Lord, because he has both made known to us things that are past, and hath given us wisdom concerning things present, and hath not left us without understanding in regard to things which are to come." Obviously since Barnabas sees the future as being to some extent explained in Scripture, this does not rule out other sources for future information: Certainly these folks did not lock themselves in their room content that what was going on outside was already reported for them in the OT. (This is furthermore only a continuing demonstration of the overarching authority of the OT, which we have referred to elsewhere.) "He even seems to say (5:12) that 'we know' that the Jews were responsible for Jesus' suffering and death because scripture tells us!" Seems to say? Where is our quote? I see no such "seems" at all, much less a direct indication of this, in 5:12. "Somewhere, too, he has gotten the idea (5:8-9) that Jesus taught the people of Israel and worked miracles (though he never gives examples of either), and that the apostles he chose 'were sinners of the worst kind', hardly a valid judgment from any Gospel picture." Another begged question? That "somewhere" is history; the lack of examples is no cause for complaint and would in fact have been a digression in direct violation of the rhetorical principle of brevity (and besides, why SHOULD a specific example have been given?); and the judgment is no less valid than Paul's own estimation of himself as the chief of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15-16) and Peter's estimation of himself as a "sinful man" - both typical Semitic statements of excess designed to bring across the point that the disciples were unworthy and humble servants. Finally: "In fact, he seems to deduce this from a line he quotes, that Jesus 'came not to call saints but sinners,' something he does not attribute to Jesus himself or any Gospel, and in fact interprets in a contradictory fashion to the way in which the Gospel of Mark uses it: applying it to apostles instead of people in general." Bypassing the same old attribution complaint, it is apparent that Doherty is incapable of recognizing this for what it is: A typical rabbinic-style exegesis and re-application of a sacred saying. Ah, context: The bugbear of the conspiracy theorist! We have one more section to go in our examination now - hang on and enjoy the last of the thrill ride.

|

Sources

1. Heng.Cx - Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
2. Metzg.NT - Metzger, Bruce Manning. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
3. Wilk.ChrRom - Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1984.

   All quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers are taken from the multi-volume set, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, by T and T Clark and Eerdmans, reprinted 1994.

   ---

   Go Home!