JoeWallack

JW:
The claim is often made by Apologists that the Gospels fall into the category of Greco-Roman biographies. The purpose of this Thread will be to perform a case study of the significant similarities and differences in presentation of the Gospel "Mark", and The Life of Apollonius as to Sources. Sources are the key difference between biographies and stories as biographies utilize sources in order to control the content while stories avoid sources in order to free the narrative. "Mark" here is the variable or unknown and Apollonius is the control since it is universally agreed to be a Greco-Roman biography.

Tools:

"Mark": http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark

The Life of Apollonius: http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/apollon...1_01.html#%A71

JW:
The author identifies the following sources in general:

1) Cities the subject visited.

2) Temples the subject visited.

3) Accounts written of him.

4) Letters by the subject.

Compare to "Mark" which never explicitly claims any source. Beyond that "Mark" makes it a point of trying to deny by implication that there were any human sources:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

and the coup de grace

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

At this point "Mark" would not just be not a biography, it would be anti-biography (denial of sources).

A related issue to consider in this brief inquiry is what exactly constitutes a biography. Is it merely the intent of the author, as Apologists claim, or is it the effort? Let's say for example that Jeffrey Gibson writes what he considers to be a biography of Mr. Doherty but Gibson limits his sources to posts of Mr. Doherty on these boards and articles by those critical of Mr. Doherty. In contrast Gibson ignores/gives inadequate attention to Mr. Doherty's main works such as books, articles and websites and articles by those approving of Mr. Doherty. Would we say that Gibson has written a biography of Mr. Doherty? Or maybe just a bad one?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you please name who these "apologists" are and state why it is that you consider them to be so? Is the claim ever made by anyone who is not by your unstated definition of "apologist" an "apologist"? Was Votaw one such beastie?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you tell us which of the recent or classic works on the question of the genre of the Gospels, and especially which of those that conclude that the Gospels do indeed fall into the category of Greco-Roman biographies, you've actually read?

Can you produce anything from any expert on Greco Roman biographies and the techniques used by authors of Greco-Roman biographies in constructing their narratives that supports your claim that "sources", let alone the way that authors of ancient biographies utilized sources ot the fact that they referred to the sources they employed, are the keys to recognizing what is a βιος and what is not?


And is it the case that a statement about the sources employed in the construction of a βιος, let alone one about where these sources were found and the efforts engaged in to secure them, is not only a characteristic, but an essential feature, of Greco Roman biographies? Do we find such statements in all works which the ancients recognized as biographies -- especially those whose date of composition is closer chronologically to that of Mark than the Life of Apollonius is?

If not, then all that you may legitimately conclude is that one of the differences between GMark and the Life of Apollonius is that the Life contains a statement about the sources of the work (or, more accurately, where Philostraus says he got the sources he says he employed as the basis of his work). You may not legitimately conclude that because the author of GMark does not speak of the sources he employed, that Mark is not aβιος .


Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Please name the "apologists" who claim (and cite where they actually say) that it is "merely" what an ancient author says about his intent in writing that actually makes a work an example of the kind of writing that the ancient recognized as, or deemed, a βιος.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Joe and Jeffrey,

You both must understand only a small number of source types are listed in the draft above, and to address the OP more comprehensively further source types --- and not necessarily from the document tradition --- may be introduced. For example if Joe were to include a fiifth source:

5) Inscriptions to the subject.

The inscription to the historicity of Apollonius currently at the Adana Museum might be cited, and from this scope, by thus bringing in the archaeological sources, even just the epigraphy, the legitimate conclusions are far more substantial. I am not aware of any inscriptions dedicated to Mark.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

You are misreading and entirely misunderstanding what the point at issue is, Pete, as well as trying ride your hobby horse within it.

The point at issue is not, as you seem to think, what or how many sources there are for a given historical figure nor how historically reliable these sources are.

It's whether a writing that does not contain what is reputed (but never shown) to be a feature characteristic of, and essential to, the genre βιος is a βιος.

And, more importantly, its also whether Joseph's claim that one of the features essential to an ancient writing actually being a Greco-Roman βιος_ is that it contains a statement on the part of that writing's author about the sources he used and where he found them, has any validity.

So your admonition above about what we must understand, and your thinking that introducing a broader discussion of source types is called for given what is being noted, not is irrelevant. It misses the mark completely.

Please leave your hobby horse about their being more, and other than literary, evidence for Apollonius than for other particular figures spoken of in, or attributed to be the authors of, ancient literature out of this thread. And please do not try to change a thread that is not about the historicity of anyone, let alone the whether testimony to given figures that is regarded as ancient really is, into one that is by doing again what you've just done.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

To the extent that the OP concerns the internal textual criticism of the two works of literature cited, you are correct. I have still not been able to get my head around the fact that discussions concerning the internal characteristics of texts can be carried on for centuries without expanding the discussions to the external characteristics of those same texts. Please carry on with the internal criticism - its good to get half the story worked out first.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

And you are still not grasping what the concerns of the OP are. It has nothing whatsoever to do with textual criticism, let alone, "internal textual criticism" (whatever that is).

It's concerns are what the literary features of a particular genre of ancient literature are, and whether or not GMark possessedeither enough of these characteristics, whatever they are, or the ones thought or known by the ancients to be essential to the genre, to be classified as an example of that genre.

And what the "external characteristics" of a text are, let alone how one would go about discusiing them or why it would even be relevant to do so in order to deal with the issue of what genre Mark is, is beyond me..

Note -- this is not an inviation for you to "enligthen" me on these matters.

If you have no knowledge either of the particular literary features that were thought by the ancients to be essential to something being, or being recognizeable as, a βιος, or of the recent scholarly discsussion of this matter -- which from all indications it appears you do not -- then please do not post to this thread.

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

One of the problems here, is the strong suspicion that a large part of the sources claimed by Philostratus (eg Damis) are pure invention by Philostratus. One of the signs of a certain type of fiction in the Ancient World (eg the Augustan Histories) is the invention of imaginay sources.
The strong fictional element of Philostratus' Life of Apollonius may make it a bad example of a typical Ancient biography.

(When I say the Life of Apollonius has strong fictional elements, I don't just mean that it is mostly untrue. Philostratus IMO is deliberately imitating the Ancient Greek novel.)

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Yes, isn't the suggestion usually that Philostratus' "Damis" source, who was depicted as a bumpkin slave or something who kept a personal diary, was invented as an excuse for the "color" of Philostratus' account. I mean things like the rolling robots dispensing hot & cold running water in the homes of the Indian Brahmans, or his drinking bout with them without anyone getting drunk, not a few of the miracles, etc.

Considering the likely date of composition (ca. 200 CE), and the fact that his depiction of Apollonius as a wandering reformer/philosopher often seems to be a weird conflation of Jesus of the Gospels and the Paul of Acts, and that Acts contains a "we" source that sounds a lot like the Damis account, is has been proposed that the Gospels and Acts served as some of Philostratus' sources for details and color.

DCH