Kapyong wrote:IOW, Christians are evil because they worship a wicked man. Octavius's response is that Christians don't worship a criminal, in fact they don't even worship a man.
So you're saying he meant they that
really worship a God ?
A son-of-God ? Called Jesus Christ ? Who was crucified on a cross of wood ?
Not quite. Remember that Octavius is responding to the charges being made against the Christians of his day:
- "Some say you worship the priests' penises!" "No, we don't. But you guys do that!"
- "You kill babies as part of your ceremonies!" "No, we don't. But your gods like Saturn killed babies!"
- "You have incestuous orgies!" "No, we don't. But your gods did! The Egyptians and Athenians did!"
The author is taking those charges against Christians and in most cases
turning them back on the pagans. He wasn't trying to explain Christianity.
So we go onto the two charges we are interested in:
- "You worship a wicked man who was killed for his crimes!" "No, we don't worship a criminal. No criminal nor any mortal man could be believed to be god. But the Egyptians used to take a man and claim he is god!"
- "You worship actual crosses. Fitting altars for wicked men!" "No, we don't worship or wish for crosses. But the shape of the cross is used by you guys! You can see the shape of the cross '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.'"
Now, think of those responses coming from a proto-orthodox Christian like Justin Martyr or Tertullian. Wouldn't the responses be consistent with their beliefs? He is defending all Christians, not just his group. If so,
why is this non-orthodox Christian giving the orthodox Christians a free pass?
Kapyong wrote:But never once mentioned the word 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'crucifixion' or 'son of God' ?
Yes, but we have the example of
Tertullian's "Ad nationes", where he did the same thing: take the criticisms against Christianity and then turn them back on the pagans. In fact, scholars suspect some kind of connection between M. Felix's work and Tertullian's "Ad nationes". He doesn't once mention the word 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or 'son of God', etc. It's clear from his other works that he believed in a Jesus Christ, so why not mention that name in his letter?
Kapyong wrote:While refering to the cross as '
deadly wood ' ? And discussing the 'cross' like this :
You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with andsoutstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.
Yes. Tertullian did the same, in "Ad nationes". He defends the sign of the cross in very similar words, as in the quote below.
- As for him who affirms that we are "the priesthood of a cross," we shall claim him as our co-religionist. A cross is, in its material, a sign of wood; amongst yourselves also the object of worship is a wooden figure... Examples are not far to seek. Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers before Jupiter himself, But all that parade of images, and that display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. in like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.
But I have to ask:
why is M. Felix defending the sign of the cross? Isn't it those
other Christians who use the cross in their beliefs? What is he trying to accomplish here?
Kapyong wrote:And mentioning the blood sacrifice for a pagan son of God :
The Roman sacrificers buried living a Greek man and a Greek woman, a Gallic man and a Gallic woman; and to this day, Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder; and, what is worthy of the son of Saturn, he is gorged with the blood of an evil and criminal man.
No,
there is no way that author believed in a crucified son of God Jesus Christ.
I agree that we can't say for certain that the author believed in a crucified son of God Jesus Christ, but we can say:
(1) His answer to the charge that Christians worship a criminal and his cross is (in my view) consistent with proto-orthodox Christians of his time.
(2) He calls himself a Christian and seems to refer to Christians as a single group.
(3) Many of the charges against the Christians that he addresses (e.g. incestuous orgies, killing babies in ceremonies, dogs tied to candles, atheism, secret rites, worshipping an ass'es head, worshipping actual crosses) were also addressed by Tertullian, Justin Martyr and other orthodox Christians.
One option I considered was that M. Felix might have been a docetist. Thus 'not even a man' and not crucified. But even that doesn't seem as likely as M. Felix being a proto-orthodox Christian. Since I believe his answers are consistent with such beliefs, there is (in my opinion) simply no need to posit another group of Christians.
Kapyong wrote:Your reading only makes sense IF M.Felix believed in a crucified God - which is what you are trying to show.
Yes, that's right. It's not because M. Felix tells us that, it's because it is the simpler conclusion: we know that there were Christians who believed in a crucified God in M. Felix's time. M. Felix's statements are consistent with such beliefs. Thus, in the absence of further evidence, I conclude that it is most likely that M. Felix held beliefs consistent with the orthodox of the day.
No doubt that it is confusing that the author doesn't mention 'Jesus' or 'Christ', but we do have the example of Tertullian's letter I gave above where we see the same thing. (I argue that Tatian is another example but that can be for another day.) If you can think of a reason why Tertullian doesn't do it but that can't be used to explain M. Felix, I'd be interested to hear it.
