Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgibson000 · 04-28-2007, 04:00 PM

A few days ago, Pete Brown wrote:

Quote:

My source for a date of birth for Apollonius of Tyana was provided as requested.

To which I responded:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Yes, it was. But I never disputed that. However, the question was why it was that you didn't know, as you said you didn't, what your source (Campbell) based his claim on, and whether the reason for your ignorance on this matter was because your source for Campbell's remark is not Campbell himself, but is instead the online edition of the 1956 crank "work" of B.H. Bernard entitled Apollonius The Nazarene.

I note that nothing you wrote in message 4394765 answers that.

So let me ask again:

Is the reason you don't know what source or evidence Campell used to substantiate his claim that Apolilonius was born in 4 BCE that your source for Campbell's remark is not Campbell himself, but is the online edition of the 1956 "work" of Walter Seigmeister?

This is a simple yes or no question. May I have your answer?

I note with interest that so far no answer has been provided.

Why is that, I wonder?

JG

jgibson000 · 04-28-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

I do wonder if anyone is going to try to defend Sander on the lineage claim. Or agree that his writing was off. His using of
an implied, unstated and dubious assumption in order to go into numerical flights of fancy.

Once again, could you please (1) quote me the passage from Sanders in which he engages in the "flight of numerical fancy" you say he does and then (2) show me both (a) that it is based on the claim you say it's based on and (b) why and how this "flight of fancy" is as you say it is?

In other words, could you please lay out

1. just what precisely is his "lineage" claim,

2. what assumption, hidden or otherwise, you see it based on, and

3. why specifically, in your eyes, it, and the conclusion derived from it, are wrong?

JG

mountainman · 04-29-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Philostratus may imply that Apollonius of Tyana was born in 4 BCE.

In book 8 chapters 27-29 Apollonius dies (in one account of his end) during the reign of Nerva probably around the middle ie in 97 CE.
In chapter 29 Philostratus gives various ages for Apollonius at death from 80 to over 100 without deciding between them.

Philostratus has Apollonius active a number of years after age 20 during the reign of Tiberius so his narrative probably excludes Apollonius being much under 90 at death.

In Book 1 chapter 14 in the context of Apollonius remembering his early meditations throughout his life it says Indeed when he reached the age of a hundred he still surpassed Simonides in point of memory. This means that he reached at least 100 and may imply that he only reached that.

With death in 97 CE and an age at death of at least 100 this has a birthdate of 4 BCE or maybe a year or so earlier.

NB This is about what Philostratus implies. IMO Marie Dzielska in Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History makes a strong case that the historical Apollonius was born around the end of the reign of Tiberius and died around the end of the reign of Trajan. If Philostratus implying a date of birth for Apollonius of 4 BCE or slightly earlier has any significance it may be a deliberate attempt by Philostratus to draw parallels between Apollonius and Jesus.

Thanks for this summary Andrew. It is better than my own research
in this matter. However, in regard to your last sentence, need I point
out that you are making the inference that Philostratus knew about
Jesus, whereas the position I am exploring does not. It is possible
that Jesus was not invented until the century after Philostratus.

mountainman · 04-29-2007, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

I note with interest that so far no answer has been provided. Why is that, I wonder?

Because I am still waiting on you to answer issues on:

1) Momigliano's "Eusebius invented a new form of historiography".
2) Whether powerful despots need to engage in conspiracy.

jgibson000 · 04-29-2007, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Because I am still waiting on you to answer issues on:

1) Momigliano's "Eusebius invented a new form of historiography".
2) Whether powerful despots need to engage in conspiracy.

Oh, that's the reason, is it?

It couldn't be that you don't want to admit that you never really do "research" beyond what's on the internet, that you rarely, if ever, check your "sources", and that your criteria for judging whether a source is good is that agrees with what you already believe, that your desire to find "evidence" for your a priori has rendered you incapable of honest evaluation of the sources you cite, and that you'll believe crank scholarship so long as it says what you want to hear?

My teacher, George Caird, used to remark that along with great skepticism comes great credulity. Thank you for proving him correct.

JG

Julian · 04-30-2007, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You can prove a negative, without mathematics.

No, you can't.

Quote:

I can prove George Bush Junior is not dead. Can't you?

'Not dead' is the same as 'alive.' When we talk about proving a negative we are talking about showing the non-existence of some fact or entity. We are not generally interested in resolving a tautology by proving one and thereby proving the corollary other given a simple either or situation.

First of all, the word 'prove' really only applies in mathematics but we can, by communal fiat, use it here for 'an abundance of solid and convincing evidence in favor of.' Prove to me that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. You can't. Prove that god doesn't exist. You can't. For this reason, the burden of proof falls upon the party making a positive claim.

Julian

Ted Hoffman · 04-30-2007, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

You can't. Prove that god doesn't exist. You can't. For this reason, the burden of proof falls upon the party making a positive claim.

Hence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jGibson000

Can you demonstrate this? All we have now is an assertion, but no demonstration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Prove it.

spin · 04-30-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

1) Momigliano's "Eusebius invented a new form of historiography".

Who gives a f*ck? Arnaldo Momigliano was writing in the 20th century. If you want to make some point about the period you've got your hang up over, please make it. You've been asked often enough to get past conjecture and you've failed abysmally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

2) Whether powerful despots need to engage in conspiracy.

What's the point of this question? Despots survive partly through intrigue. You seem to be confusing political intrigue with conspiracy theories. Conspiracies do happen: Caesar was assassinated. So was Caligula. These are nothing like the conspiracy theory you're peddling.

Why can't you come out and show us here that you actually have evidence that is convincing to you rather than giving the appearance that the idea has convinced you and you do have nothing up you sleeve?

As I've said often enough, plausibility is the tool of stories. It's not enough to think your position is plausible, despite the fact that nobody else here does. When you get down to it you need evidence. Julian doesn't help you one bit, as he tells you what he means by fabrication and you missed it. In fact you have nothing to support your theory.

spin

mountainman · 04-30-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

My teacher, George Caird, used to remark that along with great skepticism comes great credulity. Thank you for proving him correct.

Harry S. Truman, 33rd US President
(1945-1953) used to remark that
"There is nothing new in the world
except the history you do not know".

mountainman · 04-30-2007, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Who gives a f*ck? Arnaldo Momigliano was writing in the 20th century.

...[trim]...

Despots survive partly through intrigue. You seem to be confusing political intrigue with conspiracy theories. Conspiracies do happen: Caesar was assassinated. So was Caligula. These are nothing like the conspiracy theory you're peddling.

Are the actions of Hitler or Musolini to be associated with
any form of conspiracy theory in your opinion?

And if they are not to be so associated, and in fact are
to be associated with the actions of (military) despots,
why do you confusedly claim that my hypothesis of Eusebian
fiction, and the consequent theory "Did Constantine Invent
Christianity" has everything to do with conspiracy, and nothing
to do with the actions of a military dictator.

Do you agree that Constantine was a malevolent despot?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.