Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-12-2001, 10:33 AM | #41 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Richard Carrier had clearly goofed when he stated that Apollonius of Tyana had lived centuries before Jesus Christ. But Philostratus's biography of A of T may have been based on oral tradition, which some here have contended is supremely reliable.
However, his point is quite correct -- there are numerous accounts of miracles in the Greco-Roman world, accounts that are often at least as well-supported as those in the Bible. So why haven't we seen a detailed analysis of RC's essay? |
06-12-2001, 10:54 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
|
I've read Richard's piece as well as a book which I highly recommend entitled Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus (1985) by Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson. Another excellent resource on credulity and miracles in the ancient world is E.P. Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus. We should realize that the modern emphasis on miracle working as something entailing godhood or messianism is misplaced. This is probably due to the fact that Christianity became so dominant in the West and over the centuries as lesser figures were forgotten it became the conventional wisdom that only Jesus was a miracle worker. Once that assumption was firmly in place it became easy to assume still further that miracle-working was a necessary trait for divinity. It's really only been in the last several decades that this assumption has been critically examined and found to be wrong. As Richard's essay points out anyone who was anyone in the ancient world was a miracle-worker. But no one considered miracle workers to be gods or God.
Nomad and others have suggested that the miracle stories in Apollonius' biography redact (directly or indirectly) the feats of Jesus. I think this is too strong of a claim and there is no evidence for it. Philostratus inherited his manuscript (as preserved by Empress Domna) from Damis a direct disciple of Apollonius. That would put the autograph in the late first century or the early second century. Additionally, unlike the gospels about Jesus, Philostratus worked with a manuscript that was written by an eyewitness. None of the four canonical gospels were written by eyewitnesses but instead were based largely on the stories floating around in the oral tradition. ("Gospel" as "proclamation" meant for Paul the stories about Jesus and only much later did the word come to mean a written text like we think of it today.) But all of this is really beside the point. The point of Horsley and Hanson, Carrier, and Sanders is that miracle working was common and ordinary in the ancient world. We have dozens of inscriptions from Asclepiums on how cures were miraculously effected. In an age of sickness before there were doctors, we should not be surprised that Apollonius, Jesus, Honi, Eleazar, and hundreds more like them all were said to have done miraculous deeds. There is certainly no justification or reason to say that one tradition must have drawn its stories from another. Indeed two can play at that game. Early wall paintings in the catacombs of the Via Latina show Jesus with a magic wand. Why when the gospels never mention a wand? Quite simply, because his early followers in Rome assumed that Jesus must have used one because all the other miracle workers did. So I don't agree with those who suggest that the traditions about Apollonius or Eleazar rely upon the traditions about Jesus. |
06-12-2001, 01:52 PM | #43 | |||||||||||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
If I may, why did you post this point? If you had bothered to read any of the posts from me, Layman, Polycarp, Bede, Metacrock, Tercel, Ish, or any other Christian here, none of us has ever claimed that Jesus was the only miracle worker reported by the ancients. We have, in fact, said the exact opposite in numerous posts and threads. At the same time, please do not pretend to argue that sceptics here do not continue to claim Christian borrowing from other pagan sources, because they do. Bill himself made some outrageous assertions about Mithras not very long ago, and has yet to offer a shred of evidence to back his claim. As for Apollonius, I will allow Richard to explain himself here, and tell us how he came to learn about inscriptions detailing miracle works by this man, centuries before Jesus or Apollonius ever lived. But enough on this topic, let's take a look at the rest of your post. Quote:
One can hardly get much more credulous than this. (And if examples of such posts are demanded, then I will provide them) Quote:
As for the case of Apollonius' copying of Jesus, the evidence speaks for itself. The church of Apollonius was promoted as an alternative to Christianity, and supported by the very people that were persecuting the Christian Church. One need not look far or hard to find the sources for their stories. Now, if you can produce inscriptions that predate the life of Jesus by several centuries, that would be another matter all together. That much I will admit. Quote:
Quote:
Are you actually this credulous on this matter James? Quote:
I must comment on the lack of consistent application of sceptical principles here. It really is quite alarming. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And as for the evidence of pagan borrowing from Christianity, well, there is that 3rd Century medallion of the crucified Bacchus pictured on the cover of the Jesus Mysteries. If, on the other hand, sceptics are willing to conceed that Christian miracle traditions arose independent of other such traditions, then I believe that I and many other apologists will be very content. Quote:
Thank you for your thoughts James. At the same time, I hope that by the same token that you reject pagan copying of Jesus and the Gospel stories, you will be even handed and consistent, and reject that the Gospels copied from the pagan sources. If you will do this much, then as I said, I will be content. Be well, Nomad |
|||||||||||
06-12-2001, 03:08 PM | #44 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
06-12-2001, 03:28 PM | #45 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
He's mentioned Apollonius and why the evidence is inferior. I'm not sure what the evidence is for Eleazar, but I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument that its good. But the evidence for Jesus' miracles is certainly better attested than that of Honi: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000356.html |
|
06-12-2001, 04:06 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
"It was a popular Jewish belief, accepted even by a learned cosmopolitan like Josephus, that Solomon had received the power of expelling demons, and that he had composed and transmitted certain formulć that were efficacious for that purpose. The Jewish historian records how a certain Eleazar, in the presence of the Emperor Vespasian and his officers, succeeded, by means of a magical ring applied to the nose of a possessed person, in drawing out the demon through the nostrils -- the virtue of the ring being due to the fact that it enclosed a certain rare root indicated in the formulać of Solomon, and which it was exceedingly difficult to obtain (Ant. Jud, VIII, ii, 5; cf. Bell. Jud. VII, vi, 3)." We find out about Jesus' miracles from the stories left behind by his followers, but Eleazar performed his miracle in front of Josephus and the Emperor himself! Not bad eh? |
|
06-12-2001, 05:09 PM | #47 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
06-12-2001, 10:28 PM | #48 | ||||||||||||||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
You said: ...We should realize that the modern emphasis on miracle working as something entailing godhood or messianism is misplaced. This is probably due to the fact that Christianity became so dominant in the West and over the centuries as lesser figures were forgotten it became the conventional wisdom that only Jesus was a miracle worker. I responded that none of the apologists on this discussion board have ever advanced this argument, so while you may have thought your point was valid in some circumstances, it certainly is out of place on this Board. Quite frankly, it looked like a bit of grand standing on your part, and by failing to address any real issues on this thread, it was off topic and irrelavent. Are you free to post anything you wish? Of course. At the same time, when it looks to be no more than propagandizing, I fail to see the point of it, and simply wished to point this out. Quote:
Quote:
I have never claimed that Apollonius knew of Jesus. What I did say was that the evidence very clearly points to the stories about Apollonius, written in the 3rd Century, show obvious signs of copying from the Gospel reports of the life of Jesus. Given that the purpose of promoting the church of Apollonius was to compete with Christianity, and that the powers that be in Rome were behind this promotion, this is very logical. Now, if you can demonstrate that we know anything about Apollonius life that predates the Gospels, then I would be happy to look at it. The problem, of course, is that we have no such records to examine. Thus, when some sceptic tells me that the stories about Jesus were copied from Apollonius’ story, I point out that the evidence does not bear them out. On the other hand, if such startling parallels do exist between the two stories, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that the story that came later copied from the one that was written earlier. Given that the Gospels are all 1st Century documents, and the story of Apollonius is 3rd Century, we can see which direction the copying went. What Apollonius knew about Jesus is quite irrelevant in such a discussion. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My larger point here is that if we are to accept that Philostratus MUST have had an earlier document from which he could and did work, then we should grant the same to the Gospels, and especially to Luke, who tells us very plainly that such sources did exist. Quote:
Quote:
Additionally, unlike the gospels about Jesus, Philostratus worked with a manuscript that was written by an eyewitness. None of the four canonical gospels were written by eyewitnesses but instead were based largely on the stories floating around in the oral tradition. This is a powerful positive assertion. What is your supporting evidence for this belief. If you have none, that is alright, and I will happily offer you my evidence for why I believe that John was written by an eyewitness in any event. I only ask that you offer your evidence first. Quote:
Quote:
Luke 1:1-4 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. All I ask for is consistency. If you accept Philostratus’ word, why not Luke’s? Further, why do you discount (assuming that you do) the testimony of Papias on the existence of an early sayings document recorded by Matthew? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I am asking, James, is that IF you are willing to say that Apollonius’ story was not copied from the Gospels, will you also concede that the Gospels did not copy from pagan sources? Quite honestly this is all that I would hope to hear from the sceptics on this matter. On the other hand, if you will not do this, then I will have to ask you on what basis you think the evidence supports such a belief in Christian copying of pagan sources, especially ones like Apollonius of Tyana. Thank you Nomad [This message has been edited by Nomad (edited June 12, 2001).] |
||||||||||||||
06-13-2001, 10:58 AM | #49 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pacific Northwest (US)
Posts: 527
|
Nomad, why are you so hostile? You wrote, "As for the case of Apollonius' copying of Jesus, the evidence speaks for itself." I replied that I doubted that Apollonius knew about Jesus and therefore did not copy him. You then take me to task, suggesting that "this is yet another example (out of many) in which you misread or misunderstood what I wrote." If you meant to say instead that Philostratus set out to make his hero a copy of Jesus then you should have said that rather than berate your poor readers for not reading your mind. In any case, a little charity goes a long way.
I have no intention of getting into a debate with you for one simple reason. You haven't read the "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" and so are at a severe disadvantage. (Don't bother to deny it; I can tell from your remarks that you are unfamiliar with it.) As for whether or not Philostratus expanded on Damis' original story, I have no doubt that he did take liberties with some of the material. Of course, I have no doubt that the Synoptists took liberties with their material as well. If you consider it a "problem" that Philostratus did that, then I can well imagine the angst you must feel over the canonical gospels. Quote:
Quote:
skipping down... Quote:
|
|||
06-13-2001, 12:34 PM | #50 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Just for informational purposes...
The Life of Appollonius of Tyana by Philostratus Information on Appollonius of Tyana Ish [This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 13, 2001).] |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|