mountainman

I would tend to agree with you, but there may be limits. The way I read the ancient historical evidence is that Plato's theology (which needed little improvement) was infected with the centralized state monotheistic HJ virus to become Christian theology.

Adam

You're talking Origen, right? Great, I'm an Origenist. See my blog here.

mountainman

There have been many comparisons made between Apollonius and Jesus and Apollonius and "Paul". I have some source material here including -

The treatise is polemic against Apollonius which virtually assures us on its own that Apollonius was an historical figure.

mountainman

There are two separate and unique Origen's in the ancient historical record of the third century, one was a Platonist and the other one was apparently a Christian. See my essay here.



This evidence of systematic fabrication is highly suggestive that we are dealing with a systematically fabricated myth.

stephan huller

Really? So it is impossible for Christians to have also been Platonists? Some prominent Jewish Platonists - Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria.

archibald

I am happy to go on the assumption that Apollonius may have existed and that there are somewhat better reasons to think he may have than for Jesus. I'm not sure how much better the evidence is, but certainly, that isn't anything I would introduce as a bone of contention. I note however, that the (apparently well qualified and respected historian) author of that article you linked to describes him as 'obscure'.

What is more interesting is the idea that his life story, as written by Philostratus, may have been written with the purpose of 'beefing up' Apollonius, to improve his credentials as a counter to the growing threat from another religion, Christianity, and that this, more than anything else, may explain the similarities in the stories of the two characters, with philostratus borrowing elements (eg. raising a girl from the dead) from the Jesus story and attributing them to his obscure figure, Apollonius.

This in fact is what the writer of that article you linked to is saying:

'He (Philostratus) created a romanticized biography based on a study of a historical but relatively obscure figure, written in accordance with the artistic tenets of sophistic composition, placed in the context of first-century Roman history, embellished with rich geographic and ethnographic descriptions, Apollonius's prophecies and thaumaturgies.

In this artistically lavish tale, Philostratus told the story of the sage's life, placing his youth in the reign of emperor Tiberius and his death during the principate of Nerva (the authentic Apollonius, as I prove in my book, probably lived from ca. AD 40 to 120).

Philostratus's other purpose was to demonstrate that Apollonius was not a magus or goes (a charlatan, dabbler in black magic), but rather a divine man (theios aner) possessed of superhuman knowledge and wisdom.'

This certainly seems more plausible to me than the idea that Jesus was invented as a 'competitor' for Apollonius. Yes, I know that is your belief, but I don't buy it, and can't think why I should. It seems somewhat odd that you link to a text by a respected academic (Maria Dzielska, Professor of Ancient Roman History at Jagiellonian University). and ignore her conclusions. You could be right, and she could be wrong, but personally I think Perhaps you should give more objective consideraton to the idea that christianity did actually exist beforehand.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what this tells me in relation to my specific OP question, which I am keen to stay true to, if possible, so I will now do a summary.

archibald

How I perceive things have gone so far, specifically in relation to the OP question:

The OP question arose from Toto's suggestion (persuasive, it seemed to me) that if we thought objectively, it would be entirely reasonable and rational to doubt the historical existence of someone if the evidence for that someone was made up of ancient accounts which contained a LOT of 'mythologozing', possible fictionalization and contradictions. To 'amount of mythologizing/fictionalizing', I added 'speed' of same.

I think it is fair to say that there have been enough examples to show that such things have not been uncommon for other characters thought (or known) to have been historical. In fact, there is at least one example (Sai Baba) where 'posthumous speed is irrelevant, since the 'fruity' components were in place even before he died.

Now, I think I omitted something, which was probably implicit in Toto's question, but which I did not list, and which is important. Quality of historical evidence.

If this is added, it can be seen that Sai baba, nor anyone else listed for comparison so far (I think) is not really equivalent, and if we change the question to 'would we be reasonable to doubt the existence of someone whose story involves so much mythologizing in tandem with a lack of strong evidence', I think the answer still has to be yes, subject to someone now either pointing out to me that I am not thinking correctly, or alternatively, someone else coming up with another figure for comparison.

Regarding the specific point about contradictions, I think an interesting point was made that this could be seen as an indicator in either direction.

Regarding what the other examples thrown up have indirectly contributed, I think it is fair to conclude, so far, that it is possible to cite figures which might illustrate both sides of the MJ/HJ argument, so a list might be useful.......

archibald

Here then, is a suggested list:

Some 'belong' on the side where I have decided to place them more than others. I am happy to be challenged. Not all relate directly to the OP.

1. Figures who may be cited for MJ

(i) John Frum
(ii) William Tell
(iii) Ned Ludd (possibly. is it reasonable to think he existed?)
(iii) Don Juan (the one who was the subject of a 1971 book)
(iv) Muhammad al Mahdi
(v) Guatama Buddha
(vi) The Angels of Mons


2. Figures who may be cited for HJ


(i)Sai Baba
(ii)Apollonius of Tyana
(iii)Numerous people who were considered deities here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...idered_deities
(iv)Numerous people from the list of Messianic claimants here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants
(v)Numerous eschatological prophets covered here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vb2...page&q&f=false


It may be noted that items 2(iii), 2(iv) and 2(v) may contain characters who may also be considered to have not existed, but it seems to me that in the main this is not the case, and if anyone wants to delve into those 3 sources for such examples, I am more than happy to consider them.

We also have Jesus' score on the 'Raglan criteria' as high, which I think is perhaps more of an MJ indicator (?). It must be noted that there are all sorts of characters on that list, including wholly fictional characters and some who did exist. Plus, we have Don's point that Jesus' score seems to be initially low, then climbing, which would be an indication of myth being accreted, and thus an HJ point. I am uncertain how to read this Raglan comparison. If the person who posted it wants to discuss it further.....

In short, there are examples on both sides, and Toto's question is totally valid, and to me, remains an MJ indicator.

Having said that, I am still inclined to see 'non-existing' scenarios as much rarer, simply on a comparison of numbers of figures on either side of the above lists, and so am still inclined to stick to my thinking it more unusual and therefore requiring more exceptional evidence, which is missing.

By 'evidence' I mean indicators, such as any evidence of there being any group who claimed he didn't exist. I don't think anyone came up with much on the thread I started on this, though various explanations were given to explain the absence.

It must be noted that in comparing 'speed', I am provisionally taking (not assuming!) what I believe to be the more reasonable position on timing. Timing (aka distance to source) is one of the things I would consider to be a very important consideration, and in this sense, it seems to reduce the amount of doubt which consideration of Toto's question may throw up. I have, after some thought, decided to include Guatama Buddha on the MJ list, on balance, but note that he does not appear to have the 'short distance to source' that Jesus appears to have.

If we were to ignore 'distance to source' we could of course add many more candidates to the MJ side. Any number of 'mythical' figures from the dim and distant past. But I am holding to my position that 'mythical figures from the recent past' are what is much rarer.

And I note that we have yet to hear (I believe) of one such figure who was first conceived as spiritual (or non-existent) and later historical, especially in such a short space of historical time, which would seem to make Jesus all the more unusual. Horatio cited figures who were meant to be manifestations of 'spirit forces' etc, but this is not quite the same thing, it seems to me, though an interesting consideration in itself, and maybe Horatio or someone else will yet come up with some more suggestions.

Toto

With the possible exception of Apollonius of Tyana, these all seem to be people who are accepted as historical because there is evidence outside of religious texts for their existence.

No one doubts that actual people can have myths grow around them.

archibald

When you say all, have you looked at the lists in items 2(iii) to 2(v)?

2(iii), seems to have several which come from religious texts, including Ali Ibn Abi Talib, as one example.

2(iv) for instance includes messianic claimants mentioned nowhere but in Josephus, putting them on a par with Jesus. In fact, arguably much lower than jesus, since for them Josephus is the only reference. I'm not assuming anything about the Josephus references, except to take the apparently more reasonable and evidenced position that they are partial rather than wholesale interpolations. On the face of it, a mention in extant Josephus is a mention in extant Josephus.

2(v) also refers to many cults and figures which appear to involve religious texts as sources, for example Maitreya (Japan) and Abu Isa (Persia).

Well, that is why they are on the HJ side of my list.

equally, being mentioned only in a religious text does not mean non-historical either, by any means.

Even looking only at the latter part of the Christian religious texts, how many figures from the NT are you prepared to consider eliminating?

Btw Toto, are you not going to post at my 'nutshell' thread? C'mon, it's a potentially interesting exercise.