mountainman

By all modern academic standards and measures of
the term historicity, the 1st century author Apollonius
of Tyana must have a far greater measure of "historicity"
than the fictitious (4th century) counterpart Jesus of
Nazareth. Has anyone already tabulated such a comparison
by the modern (accepted) criteria used to gauge historicity?


FROM: http://www.apollonius.net/bibliography.html

A chronological listing of the dates of publication of
Philostatus' "Life of Apollonius of Tyana", the first few
entries being as follows:






Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/apollonius_of_tyana.htm

mountainman

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?




Can anyone advise if this list of elements would be sufficient
to conduct a review between the two "historical figures" in
the subject line?

Thanks for any specialised comments.



Pete Brown

rlogan

Hi Pete.

IIUC Apollonius is for some a historical model for the fictional Jesus:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...?redirect=true

I had never heard of him before you mentioned him on another thread a while back and believe him to be an important clue in understanding the early Christian history.

My, how the Church alternately vilified and suppressed knowledge that he even existed. But you can't very well have two people running around who were crucified and came back from the dead three days later. It's just too confusing.

Wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Chris Weimer

Well, using the same standards that some people here use on Jesus, Apollonius must never have existed.

Let's see - any archaeological evidence for him? Nope. What about contemporaries? Nope. Written any letters? Well, several, but they're all forgeries. Conclusion: Never existed!

Edit: For a more serious evaluation of Apollonius of Tyana, check out livius.org.

Clivedurdle

That livius site may have basic errors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplite

As we are talking of a military technology of possibly 1000 years before 200 CE, and the Roman Legion evolved from it, and Athens had been Roman for I do not know how long, were there Hoplite generals in Athens in 200 CE?

mountainman

It presents a very slanted picture of Apollonius,
who was known in the ancient world for his authorship
as well as his philosophy and his life-account.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...of%20Tyana.htm
BIBLIOGRAPHY



Pete Brown

mountainman

The first element used by Richard Carrier is whether or not the respective
figures actually were authors of any literature during their purported
existence. I have provided a list of the books purported to have been
written by Apollonius of Tyana. Eusebius tells us that Jesus of Nazareth
wrote a letter to Agbar, so we have literature being written by both authors.

Both have biographies/haggiographies written about them, but when?

I was made aware some time back of a Canadian (??) ancient history
academic who has written a postive recent article on Apollonius (ie:
sometime since 1990), but cannot recall the article or name. Anyone?



Pete Brown

mountainman

This is a quick draft, for the exercise of providing
a working example.



WORKSHEET: Comparitive assessment of historicity.

AUTHOR 01: Jesus Christ (A1)
AUTHOR 02: Apollonius of Tyana (A2)

==========================

TEMPLATE 01: CARRIER, R.

CRITERIA 01:
Description: Were these people an author of writings?

CRITERIA 02:
Were they a subject of biographies or hagiographies?

CRITERIA 03:
Description: Are there inscriptions, coins, statues or other
physical archeological evidence to substantiate their existence?

CRITERIA 04:
Description: Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant historians?

CRITERIA 05:
Description: Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant writers?

WEIGHTING: Equal 20 points each.

==========================

A1:C1 - Eusebius claims A1 wrote a letter to King Agbar, and nothing else. (1 point)
A2:C1 - Eusebius quotes from extant works of Apollonius of Tyana, fragments
remain, as well as a number of letters of Apollonius thought to be genuine.(12 points)


A1:C2 - Massive hagiographies evident besides the canonical four. Many extant (eg: gJudas,gThomas).
However the chronology for all hagiographies, and the only extant historiology of the texts
are provided for by Eusebius, in the fourth century, c.312 (Constantine takes Rome). (12 points)
A2:C2 - Philostratus' hagiography extant, other's not. Eusebius cites Philostratus' work. (12 points)


A1:C3 - We will allow the one true cross of Helena, but Zero preNicene evidence - (1 points)
A2:C3 - Statues, land deed (Some Uni claim), inscriptions(?), other? (5 points)

A1:C4 - Josephus - Fraudulent misrepresentation (0 points)
A2:c4 - Josephus - no mention (0 points)

A1:C5 - On the basis that the synoptics are by "extant writers" (a view which
it not widely held) we might allocate a few points, but the integrity of the
texts and their descent and chronology cannot be determined, so some points
cannot be allocated. (7 points)
A2:C5 - Letters exchanged C.Musonius Rufus, Meoerogenes, others? (8 points)

==================================

TOTAL HISTORICITY

A1 = 1+12+1+0+7 = 21

A2 = 12+12+5+0+8 = 37

Relative Ratio: 37/21 = 70 %

==================================

Anyone want to rerun this with different figures.
Take over and derive a total for yourself.

Best wishes,




Pete

Roger Pearse

Just so. Yet there is no real doubt that someone of this nature existed.

What is more interesting is the response of Eusebius of Caesarea in Contra Hieroclem. He takes the view that he reverenced Apollonius as a sage -- a very classical point of view -- but didn't believe any of the exaggerated claims made by Hierocles as disinformation as part of his persecution of the Christians. The distinction is an interesting one, and reflects well on Eusebius, I think.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

neilgodfrey

I read this sort of comment often in relation to Apollonius of T and each time am left wondering for its basis. (Not that it bugs me enough to keep me awake at nights.)

But as far as I can tell the confidence that there really was such a person as A of T (though I do not understand why such a person would be so memorable without the miracles told about him which we are asked to discount as historical) is based entirely on a biography/hagiography/history/story by just one source, that of Philostratus, and that being without any contemporary external attestation.

The only other sources ever mentioned of which I am aware, Damis and Maximus, are only ever remarked on because they are named by Philostratus himself, so they hardly count as corroborating witnesses. Does Eusebius give us any reason to believe that there were any other known accounts of A of T apart from that of Philostratus (and whoever he mentioned in his own work)?

Since it seems to be so much "the correct thing" to believe on the basis of a single work of literature that Apollonius was a real person I feel like I have to be prepared to defend myself against being hyper-sceptical just for expressing doubts about the strength of the evidence on which that assumption rests. Firstly, I'm not denying his existence. But at the same time I don't see any comparison at all with assessing the historicity of, say, Julius Caesar or Alexander and co for whom we have contemporary references, coins, etc. Surely the best we can say is that we simply don't know. (Though some may go futher and ask what was so distinctively memorable about his life that was worth recording if one takes away all the "christ-like" miracles. And why do we have no testimony independent of one author?)

Which reminds me about one criterion mentioned earlier in this thread for "historicity": that the person must have written something and others must have written about that person. Well, Solomon was said to have written thousands of things and there were a number of stories told about his life, but I suspect neither of those points alone would seriously be considered as evidence for Solomon's historicity by any but the most theologically motivated.

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com