Ben C Smith

We have no contemporary evidence for Apollonius. As is the case with so many ancient personages (the exceptions usually being emperors, generals, and other members of the very highest social classes), we depend on near contemporary evidence and the triangulation, as it were, of later evidences.

We start with Lucian, whose work on Alexander the False Prophet is known to treat a real religious figure named Alexander. Harmon writes concerning this text:

Although Alexander achieved honour not only in his own country, a small city in remote Paphlagonia, but over a large part of the Roman world, almost nothing is known of him except from the pages of Lucian. Gems, coins, and inscriptions corroborate Lucian as far as they go, testifying to Alexander’s actual existence and widespread influence, and commemorating the name and even the appearance of Glycon, his human-headed serpent. But were it not for Lucian, we should not understand their full significance.

Lucian writes in chapter 5 (translation from Harmon, Greek text also available):

While [Alexander] was still a mere boy, and a very handsome one, as could be inferred from the sere and yellow leaf of him, and could also be learned by hearsay from those who recounted his story, he trafficked freely in his attractiveness and sold his company to those who sought it. Among others, he had an admirer who was a quack, one of those who advertise enchantments, miraculous incantations, charms for your love-affairs, “sendings” for your enemies, disclosures of buried treasure, and successions to estates. As this man saw that he was an apt lad, more than ready to assist him in his affairs, and that the boy was quite as much enamoured with his roguery as he with the boy’s beauty, he gave him a thorough education and constantly made use of him as helper, servant, and acolyte. He himself was professedly a public physician, but, as Homer says of the wife of Thon, the Egyptian, he knew “many a drug that was good in a compound, and many a bad one,” all of which Alexander inherited and took over. This teacher and admirer of his was a man of Tyana by birth, one of those who had been followers of the notorious Apollonius, and who knew his whole bag of tricks. You see what sort of school the man that I am describing comes from!

This text is important to our consideration of the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana for several reasons:

1. Apollonius supposedly lived well into the middle of the first half of century II, and Lucian is writing this sometime late in century II. So the evidence, while not contemporary, is near contemporary.
2. Lucian is a hostile witness. He clearly regarded Apollonius as a quack.
3. He assumes by his wording that his readers will know the Apollonius of whom he is speaking. Apollonius is common currency.
4. The line of tradition can be traced, Apollonius to the Tyanean doctor to Alexander to Lucian (who according to the text dealt with Alexander personally).

Next up is Dio Cassius, the Roman historian, writing in about 230. In Roman History 67.18 he recounts the famous incident in which Apollonius allegedly divined the death of Domitian from afar. In 78.18 Dio Cassius also recounts that the emperor Caracella (imperator 211-217) built a monument to Apollonius, whom he himself calls a magician and charlatan. So, again, we have here a hostile witness. (Nota bene: The translation I have linked to gives juggler instead of charlatan, but the Greek word is γοης, the same word Josephus uses for all his royal and prophetic pretenders. Charlatan is the better translation here, and that is how C. P. Jones renders it in the LCL testimonia to Apollonius.)

Next is Origen of Alexandria, who in Against Celsus 6.41 mentions a memoir of Apollonius written by Moiragenes. Origen is at least a neutral witness; he specifically notes that Apollonius was not a Christian.

Next is Philostratus, author of the Life of Apollonius. He, too, mentions this memoir written by Moiragenes, but calls it unreliable. He also mentions his other sources:

It seems to me then that I ought not to condone or acquiesce in the general ignorance, but write a true account of the man, detailing the exact times at which he said or did this or that, as also the habits and temper of wisdom by means of which he succeeded in being considered a supernatural and divine being. And I have gathered my information partly from the many cities where he was loved, and partly from the temples whose long-neglected and decayed rites he restored, and partly from the accounts left of him by others and partly from his own letters.

For he addressed these to kings, sophists, philosophers, to men of Elis, of Delphi, to Indians, and Egyptians; and his letters dealt with the subjects of the Gods, of customs, of moral principles, of laws, and in all these departments he corrected the errors into which men had fallen. But the more precise details which I have collected are as follows.

By now we are some 150 years or so removed from the purported events of the life of Apollonius (from the reign of Domitian to the middle of century III). The testimonia begin to multiply: Lactantius, Porphyry, Hierocles, Eusebius, possibly Iamblichus, the inscription, and so on. But the damage has been done. We have several apparently independent records of Apollonius from neutral or hostile witnesses within about 150 years of the events of his life.

Are there any sound reasons to doubt his existence?

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Eusebius, Contra Hieroclem:

I will therefore ask you for the present to confine your attention to the comparison of Jesus Christ with Apollonius which is found in this treatise called the " Lover of Truth," without insisting on the necessity of our meeting the rest of his arguments, for these are pilfered from other people. We may reasonably confine our attention for the present to the history of Apollonius, because Hierocles, of all the writers who have ever attacked us, stands alone in selecting Apollonius, as he has recently done, for the purposes of comparison and contrast with our Saviour.

II

I NEED not say with what admiring approval he attributes his thaumaturgic feats not to the tricks of wizardry, but to a divine and mysterious wisdom ; and he believes they were truly what he supposes them to have been, though he advances no proof of this contention. Listen then to his very words : " In their anxiety to exalt Jesus, they run up and down prating of how he made the blind to see and worked certain other miracles of the kind." Then after an interval he adds as follows : " Let us note however how much better and more sensible is the view which we take of such matters, and explain the conception which we entertain of men gifted with remarkable powers." And thereupon after passing heedlessly by Aristeas of Proconnesus and Pythagoras as somewhat too old, he continues thus : " But in the time of our own ancestors, during the reign of Nero, there flourished Apollonius of Tyana, who from mere boyhood when he became the priest in Aegae of Cilicia of Asclepius, the lover of mankind, worked any number of miracles, of which I will omit the greater number, and only mention a few." Then he begins at the beginning and enumerates the" wonders worked by Apollonius, after which he continues in the following words: " What then is my reason for mentioning these facts? It was in order that you may be able to contrast our own accurate and well-established judgment on each point, with the easy credulity of the Christians. For whereas we reckon him who wrought such feats not a god, but only a man pleasing to the gods, they on the strength of a few miracles proclaim their Jesus a god." To this he adds after a little more the following remark : " And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards, --the history of Apollonius was written by Maximus of Aegae, and by Damis the philosopher who lived constantly with him. and by Philostratus of Athens, men of the highest education, who out of respect for the truth and their love of mankind determined to give the publicity they deserved to the actions of a man at once noble and a friend of the gods." These are the very words used by Hierocles in his treatise against us which he has entitled " Lover of Truth."

...

V

ANOTHER controversionalist, by way of beginning the affray, would without demur abuse and malign the man against whom he directed his arguments, on the ground that he was his enemy and adversary; I, however, my friend, used to regard the man of Tyana as having been, humanly speaking, a kind of sage, and I am still freely disposed to adhere to this opinion ; and I would like to set before you, if you ask it, my own personal opinion of him. If anyone wishes to class him with any philosopher you like, and to forget all the legends about him and not bore me with them, I am quite agreeable. Not so if anyone ventures, whether he be Damis the Assyrian, or Philostratus, or any other compiler or chronicler, to overleap the bounds of humanity and transcend philosophy, and while repelling the charge of wizardry in word, yet to bind it in act rather than in name upon the man, using the mask of Pythagorean discipline to disguise what he really was. For in that case his reputation for us as a philosopher will be gone, and we shall have an ass instead concealed in a lion's skin; and we shall detect in him a sophist in the truest sense, cadging for alms among the cities, and a wizard, if there ever was one, instead of a philosopher.

andrewcriddle

Although this date for Apollonius may well be true (IMO Apollonius was alive towards the end of Trajan's reign), one should note that Philostratus ends the earthly career of Apollonius at the very end of century I.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Dear Ben,

A good introduction. Was Apollonius reported to have been an author? There is data to suggest that he was in fact an author.

Other testimonia in your "and so on" category must include the reference provided by Ammianus Marcellinus to Apollonius, in the obituary to Constantius which is available here.


The inscription particularly provides Apollonius with a high degree of historicity and demonstrates that he had a "high profile" at the end of the third century.

However one comment about your mention of Lucian's "Alexander". You say that ....
A study of the works of Lucian reveals that there were (and still are) a large number of works circulating under the name of Lucian which are pseudo-Lucian, or forgeries in the name of the author Lucian. We are not looking at just one or two. Mainstream has hung up for display Lucian's clever polemical tractate concerning Alexander, a follower of a follower of Apollonius of Tyana on the basis that this text is not another fourth century Lucian forgery.

I have no sound reasons to reject the notion that Apolonius of Tyana was an historical author of works, and existed in the historical sense, but I have sound reasons for being suspicious that "Alexander" was actually authored by Lucian in the second century, and not by a fourth century forger of Lucian.

Carrier's list of 5 criteria (one is --- was the person an author?) is relevant to the assessment of historicity. This locked thread summarises these criteria.



Best wishes,


Pete

gentleexit

Funny how tolerant Eusebius is, as long as the non Christian holy man avoids the miraculous!

In Life of Constantine, he describes the destruction of Asclepius' temple. I think the very one used by Apollonius.
Given the annoyance Hierocles' words must have caused, did its association with the sage prompt the temple's demise?

On Alexander and the false prophet. Didn't "Lucian" slam Marcus Aurelius in there too? That would put Lucian and the work right at the end of the second century.

aa5874

As I read the passage about Apollonius in Cassius Dio "Roman History", it would appear that the writer confounded himself.

Cassius Dio claimed to have written accurately about events yet did not even know where Apollonius was located when Domitian was killed.

He claimed Apollonius was perched on a rock in Ephesus and then immediately admitted that he really did not know where Apollonius was.

Cassius Dio "Roman History" 67.18 Now, if it was possible for Apollonius to have said those word somewhere other than Ephesus, maybe Apollonius was at the crime scene when Domitian was being murdered, simply heard that Stephanus killed Domitian or never said those words at that time or ever at all.

This story from Cassius Dio about Apollonius should really be doubted Ten Thousand Times Over.

Roger Pearse

Erm, is that what he says? Surely the point is the standard Roman objection to witchcraft?

Considering the purposes for which Hierocles wrote, and the events that followed, the attitude of Eusebius is indeed very tolerant.

This is chapter 56 of the Vita, which doesn't really explain why Constantine singled out this particular temple for destruction. It follows the account of the destruction of the temples at Baalbek, which he encountered on his progress through Palestine, where the whole town was one huge brothel centred on the temple, whose priests were effectively running the show. But no real reason is given for Aesculapius.

What does the Vita say?

The *words* of Hierocles were not really the ground of offence, surely; the bestial persecution, for which they were a precursor and justification, and in which Hierocles took an active part, was.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

The phrase "left unobserved" might mean just that. He wrote his books. He wrote his letters. He travelled his travels. He lived for a long time apparently and may have simply decided it was time to check out, and then simply wandered off, perhaps even out of the Roman empire (again), to die in obscurity or isolation.


What do you make of this very generous third century inscription to Apollonius?



Also you might like to try to explain why Eusebius writes against the person of Apollonius in many books, in the fourth century, yet never once made the assertion that Apollonius did not exist. I am happy to calibrate Apollonius in as an historical figure on the basis of a variety of evidence, independently corroborated by the above inscription to Apollonius, now at the Adana Museum.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Roger and gentleexit,

As Roger has stated "But no real reason is given for Aesculapius."


Eusebius' literary assertions concerning "the great christian persecutions" may have been fictional. How do we really know that they were not? We appear to have epigraphic evidence for Diocletian's persecution of the Manichaeans. We do not have as yet anything to substantiate the historicity of the Eusebian "christian persecutions".

On the one hand we can have faith that these stirring Eusebian stories of christian heroism are historically accurate, and heap all sorts of invectives on Diocletian and Hierocles. We are familiar with this case ... we have been taught (conditioned) to do this for centuries.

On the other hand we can ask the question what if we are dealing with standard Eusebian "fiction"? In this case, Eusebius is generating a valuable polemic against his political enemies, casting them in the light of persecutors, and himself and his theism in the role of a "liberator".

Best wishes,



Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Is it really third century? Who says so? And has it by carbon dated?


Interesting. When someone points out that Celsus or Julian or Porphyry did the same thing vis a vis Jesus, you claim not only that that we cannot trust what they say in this regard, but that even if they did say what our sources say they did vis a vis Jesus, what they say is not evidence that Jesus existed.

Why do you say then that when Eusebius, whom you've classified on more than one occasion as a liar, speaks in this way of Apollonous, we should not only take him at his word, but we should take his lack of any assertion that Apollonous did not exist as evidence,and that no one spends time speaking negatively about a person who did not exist, that there was an historical AofT?


And why do you accept that the texts of Eusebius on Apollonius are something that should be regard as evidence of what Eusebius -- if he even existed (do we have arcaeological evidence for him?) -- believed? Do you know for a fact that the text you appeal to is something that actually comes from a fourth century writer? Has the earliest MS witness to Eusebius's writings on Apollonius been C14 dated to the 4th century? If not then you are employing a double standard in saying, as you do, that the texts that you think support your case should be accepted without verification by C14 analysis as coming from the time that their internal evidence says they do, but texts that undermine your claims should not be accepted as coming from when their internal testimony says they do because they have not been c14 tested.

Jeffrey