His most interesting work for our purposes is the "The Octavius of Minucius Felix", since it provides a lengthy depiction of Christian doctrine without any reference to Jesus Christ as a historical figure or to the Resurrection [oc].
The dating of Minucius Felix is a cause of some controversy. There is a clear relationship with the works of Tertullian (c. 200 CE), although it is not clear who borrowed from whom. Traditionally, Minucius Felix is dated to c. 160-250 C.E [tm]. However, there is an opposing view that this work was composed rather earlier, c. 150-160 CE [2a].
This is an important issue, since it would add to the number of mid-first-century Christian writers who fail to mention Jesus Christ before Justin Martyr.
In Chapter XXIX of Octavius [oc], Minucius Felix wrote:
"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... 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."
"Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies. But that is divine which has neither rising nor setting. For why, if they were born, are they not born in the present day also?"
This lack of any reference to the supposed central tenants of Christianity is astounding. The Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation raises more questions than it answers [ce]:
"The name of Christ does not appear; among the apologists of the second century Aristides, St. Justin, and Tertullian are the only ones who pronounced it. But Minucius omits the characteristic points of Christianity in dogma and worship; this is not because he is bound to silence by the discipline of the secret, for St. Justin and Tertullian do not fear to enter into these details. Moreover in the discussion itself Octavius ends abruptly. To the accusation of adoring a criminal he contents himself with replying that the Crucified One was neither a man nor guilty."
This line is taken up with some vigour by the Apologist website Tektonics, which rails that too much cannot be read from the "silence" of Felix on matters of Christian doctrine [jp].
But are we really to believe that Minucius Felix converted a pagan to Christianity without any mention of the person of Jesus Christ or his resurrection?
