Talk:Apollonius of Tyana

FYI: New Loeb Edition of Apolonius

From a Bryn Mawr review, there is a new (as opposed to 1912) edition and translation of of Apollonius

Christopher P. Jones (ed.), Philostratus. Apollonius of Tyana: Letters of Apollonius; Ancient Testimonia; Eusebius's Reply to Hierocles. Loeb Classical Library, 458. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Pp. 264. ISBN 0-674-99617-8. $21.50.

Reviewed by Adam Kemezis, Bowling Green State University (akemezi@bgnet.bgsu.edu

I accessed it on 7/16/07. I don't want to fuss with the article on a subject about which I know nothing, but an editor may wish to put it in the reference list.

Apollonius sounds like an interesting and possibly important figure in the history of ideas, about whom we know little except for caricatures and allusions,like so many scraps from the Hellenistic times. His biography reinforces that there may have been some sort of intellectual contact/intercourse with India, not just trade. In the past, I have read speculation about the possible influences of Indian metaphysics on Plato four centuries earlier. Apollonian (?) traditions underline that this might have been possible, and not just for Plato. But in truth we have so little evidence to support or refute such speculations.

Similarities to Jesus?

I have seen the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode where Michael Shermer states the glaring similarities between Jesus and Apollonius. However, I can't seem to find the source of these statements documents anywhere and they are not listed on this Wiki page either.

Some of the things claimed to be attributed to Apollonius are:

1. was a messiah to his followers
2. healed the sick
3. raised the dead
4. walk through walls
5. persecuted for his beliefs
6. brought to trial and crucified by Roman courts
7. ascended to heaven
8. returned again

Do any of these claims hold ground? If so why are they not listed on this page, and where would one research these ideas more?

Indeed. The fact that sources on Apollonius are treated in this article with severe skepticism, while the biblical stories in the article on Jesus are not addressed with the same skepticism, is biased.74.130.22.28 (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are seriously mistaken in your summary.

• 1. "Messiah" is meaningless outside of the Jewish context.
• 2.-5. are correct but nothing spectecular. It boils down to "miracles".
• 5. and 6. are identical.
• 6. Apollonius was not crucified - he was not even condemned.
• 7.-8. No source mentions Apollonius ascending to heaven (again, a Jewish concept), which also makes #8 pointless.

Not to speak of the numerous non-similarities and the fact that Philostratus' books is not held to be very reliable by historians. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only are those claims either made-up or simply twists on the story [to reflect Christianized language; only serving to enhance the supposed connection between the two], there are other claims that are completely wrong. For instance, there are no sources that suggest that Apollonius was a native speaker of Aramaic. I cannot find this in any accurate source. Neither can I find the idea that Jesus' teachings reflect Platonic teachings [when it clearly doesn't; just ask about any of the modern historical Jesus scholars]. It's also anachronistic to claim that Jesus was on a 'mission to bring Jewish culture to the nations'. In fact, the opposite is stated in the gospels ["I have come only for the lost sheep of Israel" (Matt. 15:24)]. Another issue of comparison; Apollonius may have indeed been called a 'savior from heaven' but whatever that meant in Apollonius' context meant something completely different in Jesus' context. The claim about Apollonius was not a direct challenge to Caesar; Jesus being proclaimed as Savior was a direct challenge. Plus, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the earliest followers of Jesus did not conceive of him as a "Hellenistic savior" [assuming, for the moment, that early Christianity abandoned its Jewish theological roots], but rather as a Jewish prophet and Messiah. As pointed out by another user, "Messiah" only has meaning in a Jewish cultural and theological matrix. It would not have been used by the Greeks or the Romans to denote what was meant of Jesus. User:stormchaser23 2:03, 05 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a series of lectures about the historical Jesus where the lecturer says the same thing regarding the Apollonius's followers believing he ascended to heaven. This is from a Phd from princeton theological seminary, and apparently an authority on that period of history (at least more so than Michael Shermer), so there might be something to this.

And not that its all that relevant, but I feel compelled to point out that non of the gospels are considered very reliable sources either (at least by secular historians) right? User:Brentt

Ascending to heaven is not merely "a Jewish concept", but is found throughout the various religions and myths of the world. Have you forgotten the apotheosis of Heracles in Greek religion? Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"This is from a Phd [sic] ... and apparently an authority ... (at least more so than Michael Shermer)...." This isn't very convincing. Those who hold doctorates document their work. That's why they hold doctorates. Mar Komus (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The comparisons between Jesus and Apollonius are all couched in grossly broad terms so as to indict the faith. Also, the chart of comparison is not documented. It seems like an original freehand composition. That's not allowed on Wikipedia; no original research. Very likely it would be best to remove comparisons to Jesus since this has nothing to do with establishing who Apollonius was. At best, it would be acceptable to say that scholars like Ehrman have made comparisons while other scholars disagree without bogging down the page with details that could lead to people coming to conclusions because they read "the" Wikipedia article on it. Mar Komus (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Apollonius is in this case only an example that there were many like him before Christ and many like him after Christ. Apollonius is by no means unique in this respect. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Apollonius of Tyana (copied from user talk page)

Hi Apaugasma,

A few questions for you about the Apollonius of Tyana article.

1. You put the Francis quote from the sources section to the historical facts section. May I ask why? Francis is specifically discussing the sources involved. This quote is a better fit in the sources section IMHO.

2. I checked the source for this quote: "This led to controversy, as critics believed Gibbon was alluding to Jesus being a fanatic." It was simply not there in the B.W. Young article. Unless I miss something, I think this is out of place.

3. "Hilton Hotema compared Apollonius to Jesus by noting that there is much historical data surrounding the life of the Tyanean, but that Jesus is unknown outside of the New Testament." This is well outside mainstream scholarship and demonstrably false. If this quote is included, a note should be made regarding this. There is ample evidence for Jesus outside the New Testament and virtually no early evidence for Apollonius, as demonstrated in the Wikipedia article.

Thank you. Rusdo (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rusdo, I moved this to the article talk page, since it directly deals with the article's subject matter.

I mainly restored some content for which it wasn't clear to me what the rationale for removing it had been. In such cases, it is better to make a number of edits, with each edit summary containing a detailed explanation such as the ones you gave here, or (better yet) to directly leave a note on the article talk page stating your reasons for changing and removing stuff.

• I restored the James Francis quote to its original place because along with it the part citing Haussleiter had also been deleted (without knowing about Haussleiter; it may perfectly well be the case that there are good reasons to remove the part citing him, and if so, you only just need to point it out). The quote itself is about historicity rather than sources, two subjects which are closely related anyways (the former being based on the latter), so I guess that leaving it in the historicity section wouldn't be too much out of place?
• I think you do may have missed something in the source (Young 1998, pp. 180-181) for the bit about the controversy surrounding Gibbon's opinion: though some interpretation is involved, it does seem to indicate that Ogilvie's parody was meant as an allusion to Gibbon's seemingly representing Jesus as a fanatic?
• Why would Hilton Hotema say such a thing if it is truly so far outside of mainstream scholarship? For Apollonius, we not only have Philostratus' account, but also some writings which may very well be authentic (the excerpt from On Sacrifices, and perhaps some of the letters), while for Jesus, anything outside of the New Testament is both scanty and quite suspect, with certainly nothing even approaching an authentic writing. However, if you truly think Hotema's view is off, it's probably better to remove it altogether, which is what I've done for the time being.

Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Duly noted about the explanations. Thanks for educating me on proper Wikipedia practice.

The article's overall design is very odd. Why not combine sources and biography together? I feel like that would make a lot more sense. They cover similar material.

Also, Hilton Hotema doesn't believe in the historical Jesus, a position well outside of mainstream scholarship. He doesn't have the relevant academic training either and for that matter, neither does John Remsburg (who is also a mythicist.) Remsburg's quote is also spurious. Christianity was brutally persecuted in the Roman Empire. That's why they say the things they do. They don't know what they're talking about. I don't mind leaving those quotes in there by the way. I'm not a fan of removing points of view, even regarding fringe theories that Jesus did not exist. They just need to be framed the right way and not give off the wrong impression. I don't mind leaving Hotema and Remsburg in there, but it needs to be made clear that their point of view is not shared by scholars with relevant training in the field. Maybe we can add Remsburg and Hotema to the bottom with Price. Or we can remove them altogether. I felt like the list of comparisons to Jesus is a little too long. These comparisons are not taken seriously by scholars.

You're mistaken about the sources for the historical Jesus. Jesus is one of the best-attested figures in all of history. I'm not sure what you mean when you say nothing is authentic. Jesus has multiple early sources about his life. The best source for Apollonius — Philostratus — is centuries removed. This is not a controversial position in scholarship. I would point you to Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" Ehrman cites fifteen (if I remember correctly) sources outside of the New Testament for the life of Jesus. Making the statement that Jesus is "virtually unknown outside the New Testament" is highly spurious.

Rusdo (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some serious revision, to the point of a complete, from-scratch rewrite. The problem you point out with the 'Comparisons with Jesus' section is exactly right: rather than this directionless list, we should like to have a section that neatly represents all significant points of view with a proper indication of the relative weights they carry in the scholarly literature. However, I think this could only really be achieved by someone who has actually surveyed that literature, i.e., exactly the type of expert that generally tends to stay away from Wikipedia. Many articles are like this, waiting for someone who has some subject expertise to come along and entirely rewrite the thing so as to actually reflect existing scholarship. Anyways, as long as we don't have this kind of balanced and well-informed overview, it's probably safer to just remove blanket statements such as Hotema's. Remsburg's view, on the other hand, seems to be stated in a sufficiently cautious ("postulated") and vague way so as not to immediately warrant removal. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Some sort of pop culture presence

Hello all, I'm a classics student playing through the rise of the tomb raider game and the first level seems to be alluding to Apollonius. Thoughts? 2601:603:5100:AC10:B035:E5E8:9820:405B (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP user! If you find a third-party reliable source which has written about this, and if from this source it becomes clear that Apollonius plays a significant role throughout the game (see WP:IPCV), it may be worth mentioning in the article. If not, this would we original research, which we don't publish. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)