The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[neilgodfrey]

Quite apart from the evidence for Philostratus's sources being fabricated, imagine how different the discussion over the historicity of Jesus would be if we had even a late source claiming to be relying upon identifiable written reports of eyewitnesses throughout his biography!

To question the historicity of Jesus is anyone really asking for a higher standard of evidence than they have for Apollonyius of Tyana? Not that I know of. Something comparable would make the question more interesting.

[neilgodfrey]

I agree that Philostratus's Life of Apollonius is historical fiction. However Philostratus certainly did not invent the figure of Apollonius and the pre-Philostratean traditions are probably based on a real figure. See a discussion at livius Apollonius . (The author believes a little more than I do. I doubt that Apollonius ever traveled to India or Egypt.)

Andrew Criddle

I haven't studied the question of A's historicity -- only read studies of Philostratus's biography -- so if there is independent evidence for a historical A then that's fine. That's the same point I was making in my discussion on Demonax. It is the independent testimony that sways people; and that evidence is also open to debate, so there can be good faith and scholarly cordiality in discussing the pros and cons. But people have other personal stakes in the question of Jesus so it is all out war for most part.

(Though I understand Livius is authored by a rabidly hostile anti-mythicist so ....)

[neilgodfrey]

From the Livius site (last modified, March 2016):

Having discussed what little we know about the pre-Philostratean traditions, we can try to add things up, using four criteria of authenticity.

Independent confirmation: when an author who is not primarily interested in Apollonius confirms something in a source on Apollonius, we may assume that we are approaching the historical truth.

Multiple attestation: when independent, pre-Philostratean traditions about Apollonius are in agreement, we may be reasonably certain that they contain some historical truth. The problem with this method is, of course, that it is not always easy to establish independence.

Embarrassment: embarrassing information about the man from Tyana also has a claim to historical reliability.

Consistency: sometimes the truth of statement can be confirmed after other facts have been established.

I would be interested if anyone knows of any other historian of ancient times (with no interest in biblical studies) who applies "criteria of authenticity" so remarkably identical to those used by biblical scholars.

[neilgodfrey]

I agree that Philostratus's Life of Apollonius is historical fiction. However Philostratus certainly did not invent the figure of Apollonius and the pre-Philostratean traditions are probably based on a real figure. See a discussion at livius Apollonius . (The author believes a little more than I do. I doubt that Apollonius ever traveled to India or Egypt.)

Andrew Criddle

I have begun to read the pages at that site, thanks. The author begins by drawing attention to the similarities between Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus, and then selects elements from the bio to support this claim. Later, as I posted above, we see that he applies biblical scholarship's methods for determining the historicity of an ancient figure -- something I have never seen any other ancient historian do.

Of further interest is that his article on the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana appears to be entirely his own composition without any reference to other scholarly discussions. One wonders if such an article has at all appeared in the relevant literature.

But then we get into details:

To begin with, the author cites three incidents in Philostratus's life that he claims have "probable" independent origins and that "antedate" Philostratus's biography.

1. Apollonius understands the language of birds -- also found in Porphyry (234-c.303) -- which does not antedate Philostratus!

2. Apollonius knew by telepathy that Domitian the moment Domitian was assassinated -- also found in Cassius Dio -- which may or may not antedate Philostratus.

3. Apollonius warns Ephesians of a coming plague and expels a plague demon -- also found in Divine Institutions (5.3.14) by the Christian author Lactantius (second half third/first quarter fourth century) -- which does not antedate Philostratus!

Our Livius author concludes:

These three anecdotes have two things in common: they portray Apollonius as a visionary, knowing more than ordinary people, and they antedate the composition of the LoA.

Well, no, "they" do not antedate the composition of P's Life of Apollonius.

And even if the different accounts are independent -- there are differences among them, but we can't tell if they originated from a common source, though that would seem very likely -- all the evidence tells us is that by the time these people wrote about Apollonius there were such stories being told about him, how he performed miracles etc.

I don't believe any of them, but the Livius author begs the question of historicity by assuming that Apollonius really existed and people made up impossible stories about him. -- And that's his evidence for the historicity of Apollonius, along with the erroneous claim that non-P stories preceded P.

I am not looking forward to reading the remainder if this is how the Livius historian begins to establish the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana -- clearly modeled after the way biblical scholars study the historical Jesus, and even using their fallacious methodology, and falling into the same question-begging traps.

But let's assume that we have very good reasons to believe in a historical Apollonius of Tyana -- the named historical sources in Philostratus. Claims of eyewitness reports. Arguably (at a stretch) independent sources for the same stories (even if they are impossible stories, but we'll overlook that detail and the question begging it brings with it) --- the debate about the historicity of Jesus would look very different if we had comparable evidence for Jesus.

[andrewcriddle]

Philostratus wrote his Life of Apollonius c 220 CE Cassius Dio wrote his history c 230 CE. It is technically possible but most unlikely that Cassius Dio was influenced by Philostratus.

The accounts by Porphyry

If, however, it is requisite to believe in the ancients, and also in those who have lived in our times, and the times of our fathers, there are some among these who are said to have heard and to have understood the speech of animals. Thus, for instance, this is narrated of Melampus and Tiresias, and others of the like kind; and the same thing, not much prior to our time, is related of Apollonius Tyanaeus. For it is narrated of him, that once, when he was with his associates, a swallow, happening to be present, and twittering, he said, that the swallow indicated to other birds, that an ass laden with corn had fallen down before the city, and that in consequence of the fall of the ass, the corn was spread on the ground . An associate, also, of mine informed me, that he once had a boy for a servant, who understood the meaning of all the sounds of birds, and who said, that all of them were prophetic, and declarative of what would shortly happen. He added, that he was deprived of this knowledge through his mother, who, fearing that he would be sent to the Emperor as a gift, poured urine into his ear when he was asleep.

and Philostratus

His other discourses he delivered under the trees which grow hard by the cloisters; and in these he dealt with the question of communism, and taught that they ought to support and be supported by one another. While he was doing so on one occasion, sparrows were sitting quite silent upon the trees, but one of them suddenly set to chirping as it flew up, just as if he had some exhortations to give to his fellows; and the latter, on hearing it, themselves set up a chirping and rose and flew up under the guidance of the one.

Now Apollonius went on with his argument, for he knew what it was that made the sparrows take wing, but he did not explain the matter to the multitude who were listening to him; but when they all looked at the birds and some of them in their silliness thought it a miraculous occurrence, Apollonius interrupted his argument and said: "A boy has slipped who was carrying some barley in a bowl, and after carelessly gathering together what was fallen, he has gone off, leaving much of if scattered about it in yonder alley, and this sparrow, witnessing the occurrence has come here to acquaint his fellows with the good luck, and to invite them to come and eat it with him."

Most of his audience accordingly ran off to the spot, but Apollonius continued to those who remained with him the discourse he had proposed to himself on the topic of communism; and when they returned talking loudly and full of wonder, he continued thus: "You see how the sparrows care for one another and delight in communism, but we are far from approving of it, nay, should we happen to see anyone sharing his own in common with others, we set him down as a spendthrift and talk about his extravagance and so forth, while as for those who are supported by him, we call them parasites and flatterers. What then is left for us to do, except to shut ourselves up like birds that are being fed up and fattened, and gorge ourselves in the dark until we literally burst with fat?"

are so different as to make it unlikely that Porphyry is copying Philostratus.

Lactantius depends (probably indirectly) on Philostratus. The Livius author regards the plague at Ephesus as predating Philostratus because he regards Philostratus as using genuine Ephesian local tradition about Apollonius. He is very likely correct but since Apollonius clearly rewrote such tradition I am sceptical about whether we can in this case isolate authentic material earlier than Philostratus.

Andrew Criddle

[outhouse]

The rules for the verification of Jesus' historicity are the exception to how historians verify historical persons and events.

False.

The methods used applies to almost all history from this time period where there is less textual evidence.

It's basically a mirror image of the claim that mythicists are demanding more justification than usually is used for "comparable history."

Eventually one or the other side gets caught making hyperbole ("as much evidence as Tiberius" or "absolutely zero") and we lose the plot again.

There is a large path when dealing with what is plausible based on very limited evidence.

But, nothing explains the current totality of evidence like a martyred Galilean who was crucified at Passover. As a strong atheist I have no stake in this one way or another, and I do not see any evidence at all that supports a fictitious character here. Fiction is not plausible by holding the limited evidence accountable.

As far as historist and hyperbole, I find this true. Its why I stay a minimalist. All of the credible scholars are guilty, they all build more historicity, or they would have nothing to author books on, or lecture on. Its also why there is not one scholar I can agree with on what said person claims.

[outhouse]

It's basically a mirror image of the claim that mythicists are demanding more justification than usually is used for "comparable history."

What are some "comparable histories"?

Apollonius of Tyana, Apsethus the Libyan, Hillel the Elder.

Honi the Circle-Drawer as well

[outhouse]

Funny we do not know if Apollonius of Tyana influenced legends of jesus or the other way around.

Either way does anyone claim he is fictitious?

[outhouse]

The rules for the verification of Jesus' historicity are the exception to how historians verify historical persons and events.

False.

The methods used applies to almost all history from this time period where there is less textual evidence.

Your statement is false. Can you support it with evidence (as I supported my point with the evidence of how scholars approach the historicity of Demonax)? Or should we see who can contradict the other with ever increasing font sizes?

Do you think Demonax is all myth?

[outhouse]

My whole point.

If a Galilean was crucified at Passover and people martyred his perceived sacrifice and made him a god, as Hellenist divorced cultural Judaism, what religious evidence would they leave?

Exactly what we possess is the exact progression we see it in. 100% exact fit like a glove.

Ever mythicist explanation so far has failed severely, and does not even come close to explaining the evidence we have. Most attempts have been laughable.