The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[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.

Can someone point me to serious discussions addressing the question of the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana - apart from the one on the Livius site?

Would be most grateful.

[Ben C. Smith]

Can someone point me to serious discussions addressing the question of the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana - apart from the one on the Livius site?

Would be most grateful.

Maria Dzielska writes about him: http://aemos.blogspot.com/2009/09/apoll ... icity.html.

[neilgodfrey]

Can someone point me to serious discussions addressing the question of the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana - apart from the one on the Livius site?

Would be most grateful.

Maria Dzielska writes about him: http://aemos.blogspot.com/2009/09/apoll ... icity.html.

Most grateful, as promised.

Such an article helps explain why Jona Lendering (Livius site author) took the trouble to draw upon historical Jesus methods to "establish" the historicity of an obscure figure about whom we have no contemporary records but whose unrealistic reputation did happen to serve an ideological interest when first published.

Of course that doesn't mean Apollonius of Tyana did not exist, only that ..... etc etc

[Peter Kirby]

Fun fact: a young Napoleon Bonaparte wrote an essay (supposedly in the style of Voltaire) comparing the parallels of Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus Christ, uncharitably for the latter.

[andrewcriddle]

Can someone point me to serious discussions addressing the question of the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana - apart from the one on the Livius site?

Would be most grateful.

Maria Dzielska writes about him: http://aemos.blogspot.com/2009/09/apoll ... icity.html.

See alo her book Apollonius of Tyana Review here (requires JSTOR access). She is quite clear that Apollonius is a real historical but rather insignificant figure.

While he lived, the fame of this modest Pythagorean, Cappadocian mystic, physician of Asclepios, and magician was limited to some lands, cities, and circles (such as the community of the temple of Asclepios at Aegae). Apollonius enjoyed only local cultic veneration and reputation, but in a larger framework of the empire he was unremarkable and went unnoticed.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

As for Pythagoras, we do have serious evidence for his existence.

Technically I agree. There is IMO no real doubt about the existence of a religious guru called Pythagoras in the 6th century BCE who founded a political association in Greek speaking Italy and Sicily. However we have very little solid evidence as to what Pythagoras taught or what his original followers believed. Almost all of our evidence goes back to writers influenced by Platonists and or Aristotelians who had their own agenda. Whether a Pythagoras even vaguely like the later picture ever existed is not at all clear.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

We don't need to use the lowest standards of historical research as the base line for investigating Christian origins. Rather, I like to think we are more impressed by the most serious and professional of historians and how they work.

We have had plenty of historians who don't question their sources but naively take them at face value and write hagiographies of their heroes. One example is an old article by Judah Goldin who wrote in the Journal of Religion:

A full-length portrait of Hillel, then, is altogether out of the question. On the other hand, the several unmistakable features of his personality and contribution are so luminous that the essential significance of the man survives distinctly. When we are through with a review of our sources, we shall still be unable to say whether Hillel was tall or short. But of his spiritual stature there will be no doubt: for piety, ethical zeal, love of learning, and sensitivity to social welfare —what I would like to call the “constituent ideals of the civilized mind”— were the recurring motifs of his life.

In other words, we have no sure evidence but we do have lots of inspiring legends and late stories that we cannot help but admire, so here we go ....

There is a real issue with Goldin's article. It is heavily based on material about Hillel in the Babylonian Talmud (c 500 CE) and the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan ( a late work in which Goldin was a specialist). The Hillel who stood for the “constituent ideals of the civilized mind” is probably a product of rather late rabbinic reflection. The early sources (Mishnah Tosefta Tannaitic Midrash) have a different image of Hillel. I have no personal doubt of the existence of an important figure called Hillel a leading moderate Pharisee living around the turn of the era. But Goldin's Hillel is probably a creation of a later period.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Fun fact: a young Napoleon Bonaparte wrote an essay (supposedly in the style of Voltaire) comparing the parallels of Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus Christ, uncharitably for the latter.

Whately argued against the existence of Napoleon.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

None of the above quotations are evidence for either Paul or Mark being in any way the least embarrassed by the crucifixion. If they were embarrassed by those quotes they would have suppressed them -- as biblical scholars continue to argue about the way subsequent evangelists suppressed details about the story of John the Baptist until finally John removes the baptism altogether. Mark demonstrates no embarrassment -- the later evangelists are embarrassed by Mark's lack of embarrassment.

Hebrews speaks of despising the shame. That's not embarrassment. That's glorying in the death of a classical hero, the one who is unjustly rejected and punished, like Socrates, or Plato's wise man who sees what's outside the cave.

Who reads the crucifixion scene in Mark and feels inclined to hide what they have just read, or deny it, or put it out of mind, because they are so darn embarrassed that they just read about Jesus being crucified. Nobody. The tale is a glorification of the "shame" -- that is the way of salvation, after all.

I think you are twisting the evidence. The Crucifixion being an apparent (at first look) embarrassment and shameful event not only appears first in Paul's epistles & Hebrews & gMark. . . . . .

I presented an argument attempted to show why the assertion that the crucifixion was considered an embarrassment in Paul's epistles, Hebrews and Mark, so simply repeating that assertion does not further your point.

We were discussing the influence of mainstream biblical scholarship. This is a classic instance of that influence. We have all heard so often the claim that the crucifixion was an embarrassment that we simply assume it is a fact. We overlook the point that the embarrassment claim began as and remains a hypothesis, not a fact in the evidence. We know how propaganda goes: repeat something often enough and people will accept it as a given truth. But if we step back a moment and look at the texts we see plenty of references to shame, humiliation, offence, but none to embarrassment; in fact the concept linked with shame, humiliation, offence is glory, boasting. Crucifixion was synonymous with humiliation -- but Paul glories in his weaknesses; he is not embarrassed by them at all. He boasts about them.

The evangelists don't gloss over the crucifixion in embarrassment; they make it the most prominent point of their gospels. Embarrassment would lead us to expect them to reduce the detail to a few verses, not several chapters of proud boasting about the heroic and godly performance of Jesus.

[neilgodfrey]

We don't need to use the lowest standards of historical research as the base line for investigating Christian origins. Rather, I like to think we are more impressed by the most serious and professional of historians and how they work.

We have had plenty of historians who don't question their sources but naively take them at face value and write hagiographies of their heroes. One example is an old article by Judah Goldin who wrote in the Journal of Religion:

A full-length portrait of Hillel, then, is altogether out of the question. On the other hand, the several unmistakable features of his personality and contribution are so luminous that the essential significance of the man survives distinctly. When we are through with a review of our sources, we shall still be unable to say whether Hillel was tall or short. But of his spiritual stature there will be no doubt: for piety, ethical zeal, love of learning, and sensitivity to social welfare —what I would like to call the “constituent ideals of the civilized mind”— were the recurring motifs of his life.

In other words, we have no sure evidence but we do have lots of inspiring legends and late stories that we cannot help but admire, so here we go ....

There is a real issue with Goldin's article. It is heavily based on material about Hillel in the Babylonian Talmud (c 500 CE) and the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan ( a late work in which Goldin was a specialist). The Hillel who stood for the “constituent ideals of the civilized mind” is probably a product of rather late rabbinic reflection. The early sources (Mishnah Tosefta Tannaiti Midrash) have a different image of Hillel. I have no personal doubt of the existence of an important figure called Hillel a leading moderate Pharisee living around the turn of the era. But Goldin's Hillel is probably a creation of a later period.

Andrew Criddle

Is there any detail about Hillel that is not a product of "late rabbinical reflection"? How does one decide between late and later accounts when none can be independently verified from the time in question? Where is Josephus when we need him?

I also have "no personal doubt of the existence of an important figure called Hillel a leading moderate Pharisee living around the turn of the era". There is no doubt that that figure existed in the minds of later rabbinic authors. But there is simply no way to verify if that same figure had a genuine historical existence at the turn of the era.

Remember how scholars debate Demonax -- a philosopher for whom we have a biography that is said to be by a known eyewitness.

We are not talking about hyperscepticism, but valid method -- which means avoiding simplistic naivety.