Amaleq13

So a "true parallel" for a dying/rising godman requires that Jewish culture and pagan culture share a conception of the afterlife? Sounds reasonable.

Roger Pearse

How do we know that he had earlier sources?

I'm not quite sure that I understand you here. What is the date of the manuscript -- I expect there is only 1? -- in which Philostratus is preserved? I don't see how we can compare date of extant copies with date of composition, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

Many scholars are highly dubious about the sources claimed by Philostratus such as the memoirs of Damis. Some think it likely that Philostratus simply invented them himself

jjramsey

Actually, neither of us were quite correct. When I looked at the sources for Herc's death, I came upon Apollodorus' Library and Epitome 2.7.7, to which you referred, but also Ovid's Metamorphoses 9.210-382. Apollodorus was more ambiguous than you indicated. This is what he said: "While the pyre was burning, it is said that a cloud passed under Hercules and with a peal of thunder wafted him up to heaven." It is not so clear that the "him" in this case is Herc's whole body. Ovid is far clearer:

The mortal part is burned away, leaving the divine part to ascend. This is not resurrection, in which the body is restored, not purged. For example, 2 Maccabees 9:10-11 reads,

When we turn to Paul, he takes the idea of restoration to the next level, where the flesh of the old body is transformed into something suitable for the kingdom of God. Note that the metaphors he uses are not of purging the flesh and of leaving behind the spiritual part to ascend. He speaks of the resurrection body as being somewhat akin to a plant growing from the seed that dies (1 Cor. 15:35-44), and also in terms of mortality putting on immortality. He also speaks more directly in 1 Cor. 15:51-52, "We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." The implication is that the bodies of those who are alive at the end of the age will have their flesh changed in the same way that the dead have their flesh changed. (Note that he says, "We will not all die, but we will all be changed.")

sorompio

I think the comparisons should be made from what we know about the myths and religions. A single scope is enought to see there is no originality in Christianity. Check chapter XXXVII of James George Frazer "The Golden Bough" about Oriental Religions in the West. Some immediate parallels with the myths of Christianity arise on first reading.

Skeptical

Are you saying Dec 25th wasn't the Winter Solstice on the Julian calendar? Further research lead me to lots of sites claming the Dec 25th was also the celebration of the birth of "sol Invictus" or "the invicible sun". Here is one site that includes refs although some of the links appear broken:

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/ar..._invictus.html

This is about as much research on this as I am willing to do. If you have something to the contrary post it.

That's a bit of a loaded question, how do we *know* anything from ancient history? There's a lot that _could_ be false that we commonly accept, simply because we have scant evidence and in the grand scheme of things most of it is probably not all that important to say we *know*.

I am not a professional historian, but I am an educated layman. My take on the dozens of history books I have read is that when someone says "we know blah" they mean essentially "the scant evidence we have indicates ...". Absent a time machine or new discoveries that's about the best we'll be able to do.

I really don't think its a guess. It is a fact that Pagans celebrated days such as the Winter Solstice. If the Winter Solstice was on Dec 25th on the Julian calendar, and I have not seen a ref to the contrary, then the Pagans did celebrate it on that day. Other refs say that Dec 25th was celebrated as the birthday of Sol Invictus, a pagan god. The early Church fathers did not celebrate Christmas on Dec 25th, and then beginning sometime in the 3rd century the church started celebrating Christmas on Dec 25th.

I would say that it is a logical inference supported by the available data that they chose that day to supplant an existing Pagan festival. It is the explanation most supported by the evidence I have seen. It's an inference and its not dispositive, but it's an educated inference supported by what we know and it seems to be the most reasonable explanation unless you have an alternative proposal.

Skeptical

Simple, we don't. Keep in mind there's a lot we also don't know about early Gospel construction. Given that we have very little except scraps from the 1st century, a bit better in the 2nd, one could equally say "how do we know what the gospels looked like in the 1st?". Same answer, we don't.

Philostratus said he had sources. Maybe he was lying, maybe he wasn't. How do we know the gospels weren't systematically altered during the 2nd century? We don't. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. I think it is reasoanble to assume he had _some_ sources, although what embellishiments he may have made and to what extent he may have exaggerated the extent of his sources who knows.

The dates I have seen for the composition of Philostratus is 3rd century, can't speak to the date of what manuscripts we have.

My point was that we cannot say "look, he's writing in the 3rd about events in the 1st" without taking into account what 1st cent sources he may have had. The poster I was replying to made the argument that the gospels were composed in the 1st, which is probably true. (at least 1stish, some may have bled into early 2nd), but my point was that Philostratus said he had sources from the 1st, and to compare apples to apples you would have to compare the sources he used to the sources of the gospels.

If you know that the ms we have of Philo was later, just say so, I'm not going to go off running down dates. I'd prefer you just say "my source says the ms of Philostratus is ..." and be done with it.

Skeptical

I think it would be more accurate to say "some" scholars are highly dubious about "some" of the sources claimed by Philostratus.

I've seen that argument and as far as I can tell, they don't really have any way of knowing that one way or the other and are basing it solely on the idea that Philostratus seems to exaggerate (as did nearly all ancient writers). You can always cast some doubt on any ancient text. It's the nature of the beast.

Like I said in another post, I think its reasonable to believe he had _some_ sources, although what those sources were and what they said we will likely never know. Just like we will likely never know what the pre-Pauline creeds really looked like since all we have is Paul's word for it.

That's history for you.

robto

You have to remember that the solstice drifted because the calendar wasn't perfect. Because they didn't skip the leap day every 100 years like we do now, the solstice would have drifted by about 1 day in 100 years. It actually drifted faster because for the first 36 years they had a leap day every 3 years instead of 4. None of the links I found said what day was the solstice in 46 BC when the Julian calendar was introduced, but whatever day it was, it would have been a different day in 270 AD when the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun was established.

Phlox Pyros

With respect to December 25th being the date of the celebration of the Festival of the Sun, Julian The Apostate has something interesting to say about it:

So, December 25th as a specific date is not given, but it sounds as if it was celebrated very close to that day if not on that day.