Chris Weimer

The problem with your hypothesis, mountainman, is that it essentially contains less evidence for it than the orthodox Jesus does for it. You're theory is no different than a theory saying that the entire world was born in 1776 and the entire history of it was fabricated on the spot by Jewish lizard overlords who control the world. In other words - nil.

Clivedurdle

Maybe there are elements of both? The interesting challenge is working out what is what.

andrewcriddle

I've been reading Dzielska's book

A lot of it is based on previuos work such as Bowie's on the unreliability of the historical infornation that Philostratus claims to get from Damis.

One of her more original and controversial ideas is that the chronology of Apollonius in Philostratus (c 4 BCE to c 97 CE) conflicts with the statement by Cassius Dio that Apollonius flourished in the time of Domitian (EPI TOU DOMITIANOU ANThHSANTA). She claims that flourish means was at his peak zenith or acme and would not be used of someone Cassius Dio regarded as over 50 at the time of Domitians accession (let alone over 80).

If one accepts that Philostratus' chronology is bogus one can plausibly argue on other evidence that the historical Apollonius was born c 37 and died c117 CE.

(IF the date of birth of Apollonius was long after that given by Philostratus it seems possible IMO that Philostratus deliberately dated his birth to 4 CE to make a covert parallel with Christ.)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

I read in Alden Mosshammer's book on Eusebius and the Greek Chronographical tradition that Greek terms for 'flourish' and 'be born' can be confusable; and that this fact accounts for some of the problems in Eusebius' Chronicle. Unfortunately I didn't note down the exact terms in question, but I wonder if perhaps this may be a factor here?

If Philostratus really was twisting the legend for anti-Christian purposes, this would be a link to Hierocles and his manufacture of anti-Christian propaganda such as the Acts of Pilate.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

One of the few multiply supported bits of information about Apollonius is that he witnessed by ESP (clairvoyance telepathy) the assassination of Domitian while he (Apollonius) was in Ephesus.

I don't think that Cassius Dio (who knows this story) meant to suggest that Apollonius was born in the reign of Domitian.

According to Dzielska Eusebius' Chronicle (in Jerome's version) has Apollonius reach his acme (c 49 years old) in the 16th year of Domitian ie 96 CE.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

The hypothesis makes the claim that christianity is a 4th century invention of Constantine, and from its inception (in the west of the empire, and then at Nicaea 325CE) it rapidly went downhill into bloodshed, darkness and depravity, indicative of the fruits of the tree.

We have the emperor Julian within 40 years of Nicaea, formally stating that the literature of christianity is :

The implication of this hypothesis is that the fourth century saw the first christians on the planet, despite the literature and theory of Eusebius. Take the Eusebian "evidence" out of the picture, and there is nothing left of any evidence of christianity on the planet prior to Constantine. No churches, no literature, no archeology, nothing.

Had I claimed the entire world was born in 1776 and the entire history of it was fabricated on the spot by Jewish lizard overlords who control the world then such a theory would be obliterated by the recent carbon dating of the gospel of Judas to a period in time between 240-340 CE.

My claim is open to refutation either in full or in part, and will rise or fall on the evidence forthcoming. For example, there are ZERO carbon datings of NT manuscripts which are in conflict with the theory, and as outlined above, all other historical evidence is consistent with the hypothesis.

Now you can point out to me specific historical evidence which is inconsistent with such a hypothesis, and thereby destroy the hypothesis, but your above comparison is neither accurate or fair (as shown above).

Finally, the hypothesis explains the troublesome issue "If christianity started out as a good thing, why did things go downhill and stay that way since Nicaea?". This is an issue of integrity, both relating to the history and to the philosophy of christianity which is adequately explained by the hypothesis.


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

mountainman

The term I would tend to use is "Hellenism". From your readings of the emperor Julian you should be able to see that he uses this term to cover the collective beliefs of the empire, adopted by the Romans.

Out of this Hellenism, the Neoplatonic philosophy is engendered, and there is adequate evidence to associate Neoplatonism and NeoPythagorism together. The lineage of Plotinus and Iamblichus, praised by (emperor) Julian is clearly related to Pythagoras, as well as Plato.


BTW, I refuse to call Julian "the apostate" because he never embraced christianity in his youth, despite his forced education.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au