mountainman

Dear Ben, aa5874 and Pat,

We have been down this path before. Did Jesus exist? Did Apollonius exist? These two questions relate to the historicity of these two figures in history. Richard Carrier seems to utilise the following elements as criteria by which a gauge of historicity could be obtained ...

1. Were these people an author of writings?

2. Were they a subject of biographies or hagiographies?

3. Are there inscriptions, coins, statues or other physical archeological
evidence to substantiate their existence?

4. Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant historians?

5. Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant writers?

I have constructed a draft calculation against each of these elemental criteria in order to make an attempt at quantifying this "index of historicity". The summary of earlier thread is that Apollonius appears far more substantial than Jesus --- in short, Apollonius has alot more of Carrier's requirements going for him.

What can we say about this? Nothing much. It certainly cannot tell us with any more absolutely certainty whether either figure existed. All that it demonstrates is that, on the basis of the criteria selected (1 to 5 above) Apollonius scores a higher value -- he has more probability of existing than does Jesus.

The parallels between Apollonius and "Jesus" (and those between Apolonius and "Paul") are not insignificant and many articles have outlined the commonalities. But which account of which figure served as a basis for the other? In answering this question, we need to know when the NT was authored, since we are reasonably sure Philostratus - the author of Apollonius - wrote c.216 CE. If we dont know when the NT was authored, then at the very least we have to make a call that they were written either before 216 CE or after 216 CE. As far as I can determine whatever consensus is out there with the mainstream it rests with the conjecture that the NT was written in an unknown century, probably not the first at all, more likely the second century. I am unaware of too many mainstream theorists who place authorship of the NT after the year 216 CE.

However, at the end of the day we have no evidence for the dating of the authorship of the NT, except for the assertions to a chronology via Eusebius and Heggesipus and Papias and other shadowy authors dredged up from the libraries of Rome (and elsewhere) by Eusebius during the meteoric rise to supremacy of the emperor who was to make the "christian new testament" the official canonised holy writ of a new Roman centralised state monotheistic religion.

There is the extremely visible political polemic by Eusebius against Apollonius written at an epoch when the shrines and temples frequented by Apollonius were being destroyed and robbed of their treasures. What does this tell us? It highlights that at least Eusebius and Constantine thought Apollonius was a real historical person, and that he was dangerous to their plans in some manner -- and needed to be dealt with: in the literature and polemic, and in the destruction of ancient and highly revered temples.

The position that I am stress-testing is of course that the NT was authored after the year 216 CE, and that therefore the authors of the NT had not only the text of Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius" to work with, but all the books which were originally authored by Apollonius - who would have written about the Logos, as he wrote apparently about Pythagoras. This position is supported by the fact that although Philostratus makes no mention of Jesus, or christians or apostles, the NT makes mention of Apollonius in Acts, as an opponent of sorts to the orthodoxy "at that time".

I would be interested to know if there are people any here who think that it is possible that the NT was authored after the year 216 CE.

Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

That is not what this thread is about. Please refer to the OP. This thread is about whether incorporating legendary or blatantly fictional elements into a text turns that text into fiction.

Ben.

mountainman

Dear Ben and aa5874,

Surely the ultimate question relates to what the people of that epoch believed. Were there any who professed to be followers of Pythagoras? Wasn't this the claim of Apollonius? They obviously thought he was divine and they reverenced his memory in the preservation of his writings, in biographies, in inscriptions and by other modes. The Pythagorean healing traditions based on the temples frequented by Apollonius is healthily attested to in the study of the physician Galen, who exemplifies as a "therapeutae of Asclepius" -- an assistant at a temple to the priesthood (if any) at a temple (or shrine) to Asclepius - which are scattered numerously across the ROman empire.

Galen enrolled in the cult of Asclepius. He served the pythagorean divinity which is eloquently stated in the supposed final words of Plotinus (c.270 CE) according to Eustochius :
Yes, I think this is admirably expressed, and I for one count myself as a follower of the pythagorean tradition rather than a follower of the christian tradition, not only because I am convinced that the christian tradition is a fourth century fabrication, but on the basis of the philosophy inherent in these words of Plotinus (whom Porphyry preserved).

Best wishes,


Pete


ate of modern medicine would not be so far advanced as it is today.