|
 Author: John Denham Parsons CHAPTER II.
THE EVIDENCE OF MINUCIUS FELIX.
The Fathers who wrote in Latin, used the word _crux_ as a translation
of the Greek word _stauros_. It is therefore noteworthy that even this
Latin word "crux," from which we derive our words "cross" and
"crucify," did not in ancient days necessarily mean something
cross-shaped, and seems to have had quite another signification as its
original meaning.
A reference, for instance, to the writings of Livy, will show that in
his time the word crux, whatever else it may have meant, signified a
single piece of wood or timber; he using it in that sense.[6]
This however is a curious rather than an important point, for even the
assumption that the word _crux_ always and invariably meant something
cross-shaped, would not affect the demonstration already made that the
word _stauros_ did not.
As our Scriptures were written in Greek and were written in the first
century A.C., the vital question is what the word stauros then meant,
when used, as in the New Testament, without any qualifying expression
or hint that other than an ordinary stauros was signified. What the
Fathers chose to consider the meaning of that word to be, or chose to
give as its Latin translation, would, even if they had written the same
century, in no wise affect that issue. And, as a matter of fact, even
the earliest of the Fathers whose undisputed works have come down to
us, did not write till the middle of the second century.
Granting, however, as all must, that most if not all of the earlier of
the Fathers, and certainly all the later ones, rightly or wrongly
interpreted the word stauros as meaning something cross-shaped, let us,
remembering that this does not dispose of the question whether they
rightly or wrongly so interpreted it, in this and the next two chapters
pass in review the references to the cross made by the Fathers who
lived before Constantine's march upon Rome at the head of his Gaulish
army.
Commencing, on account of its importance, with the evidence of Minucius
Felix, we find that this Father wrote
    "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 arms
    outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is
    sustained by a natural reason or your own religion is
    formed with respect to it."[7]
Various other pronouncements to a similar effect are to be found in the
writings of other Christian Fathers, and such passages are often quoted
as conclusive evidence of the Christian origin of what is now our
symbol. In reality, however, it is somewhat doubtful if we can fairly
claim them as such; for the question arises whether, if the writers in
their hearts believed their cross to be a representation of the
instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed, they would have
omitted, as they did in every instance, to mention that as the right
and proper and all-sufficient reason for venerating the figure of the
cross.
Moreover it is quite clear that while, as will be shown hereafter, the
symbol of the cross had for ages been a Pagan symbol of Life, it can,
as already stated, scarcely be said to have become a Christian _symbol_
before the days of Constantine. No cross-shaped symbol of wood or of
any other material had any part in the Christianity of the second and
third centuries; and the only cross which had any part in the
Christianity of those days was the immaterial one traced upon the
forehead in the non-Mosaic and originally Pagan initiatory rite of
Baptism, and at other times also according to some of the Fathers,
apparently as a charm against the machinations of evil spirits.
This "sign" or "signal" rather than "symbol" of the cross, referred to
as theirs by the Christian writers of the second and third centuries,
is said to have had a place before our era in the rites of those who
worshipped Mithras, if not also of those who worshipped certain other
conceptions of the Sun-God; and it should be noted that the Fathers
insist upon it that a similar mark is what the prophet Ezekiel referred
to as that to be placed upon the foreheads of certain men as a sign of
life and salvation; the original Hebrew reading "Set a _tau_ upon the
foreheads of the men" (_Ezek_. ix. 4), and the tau having been in the
days of the prophet in question--as we know from relics of the
past--the figure of a cross. Nor should it be forgotten that Tertullian
admits that those admitted into the rites of the Sun-God Mithras were
so marked, trying to explain this away by stating that this was done in
imitation of the then despised Christians![8]
That it was this immaterial sign or signal, rather than any material
symbol of the cross, which Minucius Felix considered Christian, is
demonstrated by the fact that the passage already quoted is accompanied
by the remark that
    "Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor
    wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood
    venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods.
    For your very standards, as well as your banners, and
    flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded
    and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate
    the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man
    affixed to it."[9]
This remarkable denunciation of the Cross as a Pagan symbol by a
Christian Father who lived as late as the third century after Christ,
is worthy of special attention; and can scarcely be said to bear out
the orthodox account of the origin of the cross as a Christian symbol.
It is at any rate clear that the cross was not our recognised symbol at
that date; and that it is more likely to have been gradually adopted by
us from Sun-God worshippers, than by the worshippers of Mithras and
other pre-Christian conceptions of the Sun-God from us.
As our era was six or seven centuries old before the crucifix was
introduced, and the earliest pictorial representation of the execution
of Jesus still existing or referred to in any work as having existed
was of even later date, much stress has been laid by us upon what we
allege to be a caricature of the crucifixion of Jesus and of much
earlier date. The drawing in question was discovered in 1856 to be
scrawled upon a wall of the Gelotian House under the Palatine at Rome;
and as no Christian representations of the alleged execution upon a
cross-shaped instrument of even a reasonably early date exist, it would
of course be greatly to our interest to be able to quote this alleged
caricature, which is said to be as old as the third and perhaps even as
old as the second century, as independent evidence of the truth of our
story. But can we fairly do so?
The drawing in question is a very roughly executed representation of a
figure with human arms, legs, and feet; but with an animal's head. The
arms are extended, and two lines, which are said to represent a cross
but appear in front of the figure instead of behind it, traverse the
arms and trunk. In the foreground is a man looking at this grotesque
figure; and an accompanying inscription is to the effect that
"Alexamenos adores his God."
Tertullian relates that a certain Jew "carried about in public a
caricature of us with this label, _An ass of a priest_. This figure had
an ass's ears, and was dressed in a toga with a book; having a hoof on
one of his feet."[10]
It is upon the strength of this passage and the two lines traversing
the figure, that we, ignoring the fact that the figure is standing,
claim this much-quoted _graffito_ as conclusive evidence of the
historical accuracy of our story. But it may be pointed out that even
if this was a caricature of the execution of Jesus made at the date
mentioned, a caricature, made certainly not less than two hundred years
after the event, is not altogether trustworthy evidence as to the
details.
And, was it a caricature of the execution of Jesus? It would appear
not.
To commence with, the two lines or scratches--for they are little
more--which we call a cross, need not necessarily have formed a part of
the original _graffito_; and, even if they did, of themselves prove
nothing. There is no reference to a cross in the inscription, nor is
there anything to show that an execution of any kind is what is
illustrated. Moreover, the hoof upon one foot, mentioned by Tertullian,
is not to be seen; a remark which also applies to the toga and the book
he mentions. And even what Tertullian referred to was not a caricature
of the execution of Jesus.
It should also be noted that the head of the figure in this famous
graffito, is more like that of a jackal than that of an ass; and
appears to have been a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis, who
is so often to be seen upon relics of the past as a figure with a
jackal's head, with human arms extended, and with human legs and feet,
as in this drawing.
Upon all points, therefore, our claim concerning the graffito is an
ill-founded one; and it cannot be considered evidence regarding either
cross or crucifixion.
There thus being no opposing evidence of any weight, it is quite clear
from the fact that as late as the third century after Christ we find a
Christian Father who venerated the sign or figure of the cross
denouncing it as a symbol, that no material representations of that
sign or figure were recognised as Christian till an even later date.
And such a conclusion is borne out by the striking fact that when
Clement of Alexandria at the beginning of the third century made out a
list of the symbols which Christians were permitted to use, he
mentioned the Fish and the Dove but said nothing regarding the
Cross.[11]
As to the sign or figure of the cross referred to by the Fathers of the
second and third centuries, even so high an authority as the Dean of
Canterbury admits, as we shall see in the next chapter, that it was not
"mainly" as reminding them of the death of Jesus that the Christians of
the second and third centuries venerated it. If, therefore, not in the
main, and, it would follow, not originally as a representation of the
instrument of execution upon which Jesus died, what more likely than
that the early Christians venerated the sign and figure of the cross as
the age-old and widely accepted symbol of Life and of the Sun-God we
know it to have been?
Anyway Minucius Felix may be said to stand alone in denouncing the
symbol of the cross as non-Christian. And as even he expresses
veneration for the figure of the cross, and must have approved of the
sign of the cross in the initiatory rite of baptism, that denunciation
evidently applied only to material representations of the cross.
Moreover the denunciation in question was clearly due to the fear that
such objects might degenerate amongst Christians, as they afterwards
did, into little better than idols. And if the sign or figure of the
cross did not mainly remind the early Christians of the death of Jesus,
it must have mainly reminded them of something else.
|