While both the Apostle Paul and Minucius Felix opposed oratorical manipulation, the latter countered with an emphasis upon critical thinking, argumentation, facts, and evidences. The Apostle Paul, however, countered with the power of the Spirit and Christ crucified, as proclaimed through the "foolishness" of preaching (Litfin, Paul’s Theology of Preaching, 2015). Although the two critiques of "clever speech" share similarities, the proposed solutions and the alternative focuses remain markedly different. Moreover, the perspectives of social class (in relationship to oratory) differ as well. A comparative analysis brings up questions concerning the nature and motivation of Minucius Felix's non-use or alteration of the Pauline theology of rhetoric, within his own apologetic context. One clue may be found in Minucius Felix’s reference to Marcus Cornelius Fronto, the Roman suffect consul and orator, who “scattered reproaches as a rhetorician” (chap. 31). Octavian 9 discusses “the speech of our Cirtensian [an allusion to Fronto],” in which the orator had accused the Christians of criminal misconduct (Hammond Bammel, “Die erste lateinische Rede gegen die Christen,” 1993; Nagy, “Les cande´labres et les chiens au banquet scandaleux,” 2013). Another evidence may be found in the defensive discussions of the "cross" earlier in Octavian 9 and also in Octavian 29—the only two allusions to Christ in the entire apology. Christians were denunciated for following “a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness” through “the deadly wood of the cross” (9.4). Thus, Minucius Felix’s fellow Christians, accused by the rhetorician Fronto and others of engaging in criminal behavior, were also charged with following “the worship of a criminal and his cross” (29.1-2). In this specific socio-historical context, Minucius Felix’s critique of rhetorical eloquence resembled Paul’s, but he adopted a differing approach to the scandalous “foolishness of the cross,” by alternatively emphasizing critical thinking and factual argumentation.