Talk:Apollonius of Tyana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Older

Apollonius of Tyana was cited by Penn Jilette in the second season of Penn & Teller's show, "Bullshit", as historical proof that there were many competing "prophets" on par with Jesus of Nazareth in his day, and that it provides proof that it was not unusual at the time for prophets to have many claims of miracles. -10/16/05

  • Added that to the article. Wilybadger 23:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Some random US show is in no way relevant to the figure of Apollonius. Str1977 (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency?

In the first paragraph it says he was born "2" (which would mean 2 A.D. unless 2 B.C.), but further down it says he was born a few years before the Christian era (i.e. B.C.). AnonMoos 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no authority for the date of either 2 A.D. or 2 B.C. Philostratus is our only source for his age, and according to him Apollonius was still a young man about the year 17 A.D., and lived to the reign of Nerva (ruled 96-98). He also says that "some people say he passed a hundred." Anon. 26 June 2006.

[edit] Apostle Paul

The statement "Some scholars, both ancient and contemporary, believe that Apollonius was actually the Apostle Paul, as many of his teachings coincide with those of Paul" sounds most weird. I find it difficult to imagine even a single scholar (ancient or modern) able to conceive such monstrous nonsense. Who were, or are, those scholars? It should be pointed out that ancient Pythagoreans as well as Platonists were keenly aware of the fact that their teachings were incompatible with Jewish and Christian thought. 85.212.204.34 21:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No source mentioned, none to be found? Whack it. (It may be subtle vandalism, there are miscreants who delight in contaminating articles with material that is not obviously wrong.) Stan 03:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to Sources

Well there are almost none. The main body of the work presents a Vita of the sage, but doesn't spend much time delineating where any of the information is drawn from. This article needs considerable work before it is a useful source of information on Apollonius and anything other than entertaining.

Most of it is probably based on the Life of Apollonius Tyana, or interpretations of it. AnonMoos 15:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There exist other sources. One place they are assembled is the 1901 compendium and discussion Apollonius of Tyana by G.R.S. Mead (Reprinted, NY: University Books, 1966). That said, the only contemporary accounts of his travels are the journals of his disciple Damis, which are incorporated into the Philostratus biography (which for the early years draws from writings of Maximus of AEgae). The journals themselves have not survived, and there may be some doubt as to the biographer's veracity, as he was a sophist, i.e., a professional writer. Mead says there exist some "short enigmatic letters of Apollonius".

I have removed the "allegedly" from the account of Damis's journals. Is there some reason to doubt them? If so, it should be provided. Even then, "presumably" or some such would give a less negative connotation.

The only way I can think of satisfying the request for more detail is excerpting from Mead, which is rich with detail, and cites numerous later sources. Regarding complaints that there is insufficient documentation in contemporary accounts, I should point out that there is far more contemporary writing than we have about Jesus, whose only contemporary was Josephus. The earliest gospels are two generations removed. --Josephbyrd 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Almost all of our "knowledge" of Apollonius comes from the eight-book Life of Apollonius written by Philostratus ca. 220. There is a collection of some 100 letters, not all by Apollonius, some of them pretty obviously fictional, but some scholars think that these provide the only sound basis for reconstructing his life. Philostratus mentions three earlier authors as sources of information (apart from the letters, oral tradition, etc.). One of these is a certain Maximus of Aegeae, an imperial secretary; the second is certain Moeragenes, about whom Philostratus says only that he wrote an unreliable four-volume biography of Apollonius; and the third, the one most quoted by Philostratus, is Apollonius' alleged Boswell, Damis. There is no independent way of verifying whether these three existed, but most scholars tend to think that Maximus is a real person and a reliable source, Moeragenes may be real and more reliable than Philostratus alleges, while Damis is a fiction (not necessarily made up by Philostratus). There is just one earlier extant reference to Apollonius, in Lucian's Alexander the False Prophet, where Lucian simply says of Alexander that he "had associated with the famous Apollonius and knew all his bag of tricks." I have tried to clean up the "Historical Impact" section, too. By the way, Josephus was born about 38 AD, so his life did not overlap with that of Jesus. Anon. 2 May 2007.

[edit] Caption "Nazarene"

The image caption adds the word "Nazarene", which is not mentioned at all in the body of the article, and is dubious and confusing. It seems to be based on a later interpretation. AnonMoos 15:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no authority for "Nazarene," and I have no idea where this picture comes from, but it is certainly not an actual portrait of Apollonius. Anon., 28 april 2007.

[edit] POV of "Historical Impact" section

Basically, it needs to be re-written by someone who knows more about this than me.

"Apart from this extravagant eulogy, it is absurd to regard Apollonius merely as a vulgar charlatan and miracle-monger. If we cut away the mass of mere fiction which Philostratus accumulated, we have left a highly imaginative, earnest reformer who attempted to promote a spirit of practical morality." That line just doesn't seem NPOV to me, and the rest is a little off too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.101.23 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Yea, I don't think you need to know much about it to recognize that as NPOV. As a rule, I'm a bit bold and scrap obvious POV like that whether I know that much about the subject or not. --User:Brentt

[edit] Apollonius in Modern Culture - Balinus

The quote from This Hideous Strength does not refer to Apollonius. Merlin is referring to the 'Dolorous Stroke' when Balin smote King Pellam (Malory, Morte d'Arthur, book II)--Bruce McClintock 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly true that this page (in fact the whole article) could and probably should be extensively re-written. For example, the supposed portrait of Apollonius is obviously not by Raphael, and there is no reason to suppose it represents Apollonius. But what would be the point of removing it? Since Apollonius is both a figure of history and also (e.g. for a theosophist like G. R. S. Mead) a cult-figure, it is doubtful if you could ever get agreement on the "truth" about him. Anon.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] Cleanup

This article basically reflects the late nineteenth century state of research on Apollonius (except for the section "Apollonius in modern culture"). I am the author of the Apollonius article in the German wikipedia which reflects the present state of research. It is still far from excellent, but I could translate it to replace the present English article (except for the section on modern culture). I think that would surely be an improvement. But first I want to ask whether anyone disagrees. 89.59.17.107 10:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have completed the cleanup and replaced the old version by the new one. 84.151.238.31 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You did an excellent job. Thank you! Arion 17:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation. As you are interested in the topic, may I draw your attention to Life of Apollonius Tyana (sic!) where I made a suggestion on the talk page. A registered user should fix that, it doesn't look nice at all. 84.151.238.31 00:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegedliness

(ok, I know it's not a word) Lots of the more extraordinary claims in the article are listed with the word "alleged" in front of them. Now, I have no problem with that in principle, but in the interest of being consistent, shouldn't we remove those? I don't see anything similar in nature on articles about Jesus, Zoraster, Krishna or any other religious figure. I suggest we remove them from this article or add them to those. Wilybadger (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be misled by Wikipedian "NPOV". It's not really the same thing as culturally neutral. Wikipedia's bias is very specifically American publicly-educated lower-middle-management pop-culture suburban Christian post-teener. ---Wetman (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)