The Possible Conspiracy of Appolonius the Nazarene of Tyana

reply to post by adjensen

I don't have a lack of evidence -- Paul specifically says that he wasn't married. That is evidence. You have no evidence, because nowhere is it stated that he was married.

Because he was widowed! GHA!

There was no such thing as a "bachelor pharisee", that is my evidence! You really need to employ that "cognitive historical methodology" that you like tout so often!

"Paul could hardly have set himself forth as an exemplar of Pharisaical piety had he not been married (Fee, 288, n. 7; see also Harvey McArthur on “Celibacy in Judaism at the Time of Christian Beginnings”)."

Galatians 1:14
14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely azealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

Funny that your source there cited the article I did just above your post, where McArthur demonstrated that the teaching that a Jewish male had to be married came after Jesus and Paul's time. I guess he didn't read through to the end, lol.

What? LOL No he doesn't! The Jewish marriage tradition comes from the Torah! Geez, did you even read your own link!

reply to post by adjensen

So I take it you didn't read the article, either.

Oh well, I tried

Yes, I read the article.

Mc Author, in an attempt to justify his hypothesis, that Jesus, John and Paul weren't married.

it is startling that three of the best-known Jews of the first century C.E. appear to have been unmarried-three Jews, moreover, who
were prominent in connection with the beginnings of the Christian movement: John the Baptist (forerunner), Jesus (founder), and Paul (Saul) of Tarsus (a chief apostle)

The article concludes that, because of one known unmarried 1 century scholar:

Since, so far as is known, the Essenes were the major organized group in Palestinian Judaism with an ambivalent attitude toward
marriage, it is tempting to suggest a link between them and John the Baptist or Jesus or Paul. But since it is not clear that an unmarried man was as abnormal in first-century Palestine as might be assumed from rabbinic literature, the temptation should be resisted unless there are other strong links between these individuals and the Essene-Qumran community

Leaving the question open ended, as it's unclear to Mc Author how many unmarried men were galevanting about in the 1st century.

The article is only speculation and opinion, and says nothing about a repeal of a marital requirement of pharisees and rabbi.

reply to post by windword

Because he was widowed!

Where does the Bible say that Paul was widowed? Chapter and verse, please.

The Jewish marriage tradition comes from the Torah!

And where does the Bible say that Jewish males must be married? Chapter and verse, please.

reply to post by adjensen

Where does the Bible say that Paul was widowed? Chapter and verse, please.

Where in the Bible does it say that he wasn't? Is that the limit of your cognitive historical research, what the Bible says? Where does the bible say that Pharisees can be unmarried? How could Saul have been in good standing as a pharisee if he never married or had offspring?

ME
The Jewish marriage tradition comes from the Torah!

YOU
And where does the Bible say that Jewish males must be married? Chapter and verse, please.

Since when did "rabbi" come to mean all Jewish males?

At any rate:

"Be Fruitful and Multiply"

The Torah commands every man to father at least one boy and one girl (Yevamoth 61b). Supporting themselves upon the verse "He did not create chaos; He formed it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45:18), the Sages added a Rabbinic ordinance to have even more children. In other words, the purpose of creation is to add life, and every Jew is called upon to take part in this goal.

In addition, the Sages taught that even if one managed to fulfill his obligation to have children while still young, he should continue having children when he is older, as the verse states, "In the morning sow your seeds, but in the evening do not allow your hand to rest, for you cannot know which one will be worthy - this one, the other, or both of them" (see Yevamoth 62b).
www.israelnationalnews.com...

The first mitzvah in the Torah is "to be fruitful and multiply." As the verse in Genesis1 states: "And G‑d said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth...'" After the Flood, G‑d repeated this commandment to Noah: "And G‑d blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them2: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.'"3

This mitzvah is considered a "great mitzvah" and in some cases even overrides certain other laws.4

Furthermore, by having children one is actually hastening the ultimate redemption. In the words of the Talmud,5 "The son of David [Moshiach] will not come until there are no more souls in the [Heavenly storage house called] guf." In a similar vein, the Midrash6 tells us: "Just like the Jews were redeemed from Egypt in the merit of their having children, so too they will be redeemed in the future in the merit of having children."7

One who intentionally does not fulfill this mitzvah is considered analogous to a murderer – for he, too, has depleted life – and is said to be minimizing the Divine presence in this world. From this we understand that one who does fulfill this mitzvah is increasing the Divine presence in this world.

The Basic Mitzvah

The minimum requirement of this mitzvah is to have a son and a daughter.9

But if possible one should try to have as many children as possible. In the words of Isaiah10: "He did not create [the world] for a waste, He formed it to be inhabited." From this verse we learn that gentiles too have a mitzvah to have children.11

In the words of Rabbi Yehoshua:12 "If one had children when he was young, he should continue to have children when he is old. As the verse13 states: 'In the morning, sow your seed, and in the evening, do not withhold your hand, for you know not which will succeed, this one or that one, or whether both of them will be equally good.'"
www.chabad.org...

As I was reading about Apollonius in the short snippet as presented by Flyers Fan in the OP ... it occurred to me that this figure seemed to combine the characters of Jesus and Paul, which would certainly make more logical sense to me ...

... but of course, that also increases the likelihood that Apollonius is another syncretic "1st century miracle worker" figure pieced together after the fact.

Paul and Jesus both seem to be atypical Judeans of their period, for exactly the issues outlined. Let's not make the debate about them again. Those horses have been soundly and roundly pummeled.

I'm going to do some work on this figure before I comment heavily. Interestingly at the outset, Apollonius seems to have several attributions from at least three contemporaneous writers.

Here's a link to a translation of Philostratus' book: I'd suggest that as a place to start for anyone serious about a study. I'd love to see some real debate on this, rather than the rehashing of our belief systems that we usually indulge in.

Flavius Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius

From all I've read previously, and in the same spirit of openness that Flyers Fan evidenced, I would have to admit a personal bias toward Dr. Bernard's idea that the RELIGION of Christianity was mostly forged in the fourth century at the direction of Constantine to help consolidate his rule of the Empire. I'm no longer interested in whether there was a historical Yeshua or not, because there were plenty of them and plenty of miracle-men (and women) in the 1st - 3rd centuries in the Empire ... you could even say the very nature of the Empire "created" these figures.

But that's neither here nor there. Let's talk Apollonius.

Shiloh7
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Cheers back to you Dave

I do have my view on Apollonius as you have probably gathered, but if I am wrong, I don't really see why they could not have existed at the same time because I think there were a number of holy men around in those days. Peter is recorded as having had a clash with a man called Simon who levitated and then fell down.

Jesus stayed it appears in Palestine and Apollonius travelled extensively to India, China, Egypt etc and even Jerusalem I think. We know that Jesus's ministry only lasted some 3 years but Apollonius, who is reported as having been born the same year as Jesus, lasted well into old age and his travels have been documented etc We also know he settled for his last years on Patmos which again is interesting because Revellation was written by a well educated man and most of the disciples were not and we don't know if they could even write. To have the knowledge that is accredited to John, whom Christians attribute Revellation to, would have meant I suspect that John would have needed to have educated, travelled and been able to read and write a document of the complexity of Revelation.

It's interesting that Apollonius had those travels as certain texts attribute the same to Jesus. In one of the Apocrypha, I believe that it was reported that he had been trained by Buddhist monks. It's beginning to look more and more like Apollonius and Jesus were one in the same. If that is the case however, why the division of name and personality? We do know that the PTB even in those days liked to play both sides to take control of a situation, could that be the case? Could Jesus be the point man for government/religious control and Apollonius be the one for rebellion? Who knows...

Cheers - Dave

1. Philostratus' Life of Apollonius (LOA) has never been considered anything other than a rhetorical exemplum over recorded history. Pholitus, a notable Byzantine scholar writing in the 10th century summarized his reading of LOA as follows:

Read the eight books of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus of Tyre. His style is clear, agreeable, concise, and full of charm, due to his fondness both for archaisms and for novel constructions.

He tells similar stories, equally foolish and preposterous, and these eight books are so much study and labor lost.

I've read a good bit of the LOA this evening. It is a fantastical document with references to vampires, hobgoblins and satyrs. To take this as a literal history of anything would be absurd. However, it does attribute Apollonius' life and actions, some of which might be accurate.

I'm still working on other sources and attributions for Apollonius. More to come.

2. R.W. Bernard, AB, MA, PHD, ETC., wrote the article "Apollonius the Nazarene" (ATN) which is the text that Flyers Fan linked to in the OP. (Again - Apollonius the Nazarene by Dr. RW Bernard). Apparently, (although the links are broken) other theorists such as David Icke have jumped on the Apollonius bandwagon in the past as well. Dr. Bernard is quite the late 1950's conspiracy theorist and is an early proponent of the various Water Fluoridation Conspiracies, along with the bits about Apollonius and the Council of Nicea ... as well as his magnum opus regarding Agartha The Hollow Earth (which he considered an absolute fact) (List of Dr. Bernard's Works.)

Your mileage will vary on those.

Of specific interest to the current discussion is his work "Apollonius the Nazarene" which summarizes modern theories about the Nicean/Constantinian creation of Christianity as well as introducing the idea that Apollonius was a pre-existing template for Jesus Christ. While ATN is definitely an anti-orthodox Christian polemic, Bernard does provide many interesting scholarly references or citations for his contentions. He claims that Philostratus' Life of Apollonius was saved from the fires at the Library of Alexandria which was set by early orthodox agents of Constantine.

He notes the absence of reference to a Jesus Christ in Plutarch as well as Philo which I find to be reasonable questions. However, he is hard-pressed to make Apollonius the answer to every question about Jesus Christ, for which the evidence overall at this moment I find to be as questionable as I find the evidence for an actualy historical Jesus Christ.

Still reading.

One quotation that is fairly certainly attributed to Apollonius from a work called "On Sacrifices"

In no other manner, I believe, can one exhibit a fitting respect for the Divine being, beyond any other men make sure of being singled out as an object of his favor and good-will, than by refusing to offer to God -whom we termed First, who is One and separate from all, as subordinate to Whom we must recognize all the rest- any victim at all; to Him we must not kindle fire or make promise unto Him of any sensible object whatsoever. For He needs nothing even from beings higher than ourselves. Nor is there any plant or animal which earth sends up or nourishes, to which some pollution is not incident. We should make use in relation to Him solely of the higher speech, I mean of that which issues not by the lips; and from the noblest faculty we possess, and that faculty is intelligence, which needs no organ. On these principles then we ought not on any account to sacrifice to the mighty and supreme God.

And bringing us closer to a possible relationship with early Church Fathers, regarding this passage:

In fact, we can be certain of its existence, since it is quoted in a treatise On abstinence (2.34) by the above mentioned philosopher Porphyry and also by the church father Eusebius (Preparation for the Gospel 4.13). (Source - Article at livy.org by Jonas Landering)

Okay, I can strongly recommend the full essay by Jonas Landering at the livius.org site previously linked.

At least, read this part of the article which specifcally speaks to our subject: (Apollonius, pt. 8, "Divine Men").

I think Jonas' summary makes a lot of sense:

[since ancient times ... ] Jesus and Apollonius have been compared. Although there are certain similarities (a charismatic teacher performing miraculous healing), the differences are larger. After all, the notion of a 'divine man' is distinctly pagan and not Jewish.

reply to post by windword

Where in the Bible does it say that he wasn't?

Where in the Bible does it say that Paul wasn't a space alien? Are we thus to conclude that Paul was a space alien?

The correct answer to my question is "No, the Bible doesn't say that Paul was a widower."

Since when did "rabbi" come to mean all Jewish males?

Make up your mind. First, he's a Rabbi. Then he's a tentmaker. Now you're saying that only Rabbis had to be married, yet you previously said this:

Neither was Paul a traveling preacher in his youth, he was tentmaker. And, persecuting Christians is hardly a "teaching" job. There would be no excuse for Paul not to have been married, under Jewish tradition.

The bit that you quoted in answer to my question doesn't say that Jewish men were required to be married, it just talked about siring children.

The correct answer to my question is "No, the Bible doesn't say that Jewish males were required to be married."

reply to post by adjensen

Where in the Bible does it say that Paul wasn't a space alien? Are we thus to conclude that Paul was a space alien?

The correct answer to my question is "No, the Bible doesn't say that Paul was a widower."

Arrogant much? Correct in your mind, you mean. Again Lack of evidence doesn't reflect Evidence of absence.

You're the one that's all over the place, moving the goal posts from Paul having been a married man to him being a space alien.

Make up your mind. First, he's a Rabbi. Then he's a tentmaker. Now you're saying that only Rabbis had to be married, yet you previously said this:

I never said that only rabbi had to be married. I said that all rabbi were required to be married.

Are you denying that Saul was a tent maker in his youth?

Galatians 1:14
14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely azealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

If Saul had designs to become a rabbi/pharisee, he needed to be married.

The bit that you quoted in answer to my question doesn't say that Jewish men were required to be married, it just talked about siring children.

How am I supposed to even take that as a serious argument? Really? Unmarried Jewish men were encouraged to sire children?

The correct answer to my question is "No, the Bible doesn't say that Jewish males were required to be married."

Wrong and Wrong! The Torah commands men to "Be fruitful and multiply" doing "that" makes men and women "married" in God's eyes!

reply to post by Gryphon66


Great research and links! I love this little tidbit!

For when he arrived at the confines of Ethiopia and Egypt, and the name of the place is Sycaminus,[3] he came across a quantity of uncoined gold and linen and an elephant and various roots and myrrh and spices, which are all lying without anyone to watch them at the crossways.

I will explain the meaning of this, for the same custom still survives among ourselves. It was a market place to which the the Ethiopians bring all the products of their country; and the Egyptians in their turn take them all away and bring to the same spot their own wares of equal value, so bartering what they have got for what they have not.

Now the inhabitants of the marches are not yet fully black but are half-breeds in matter of color, for they are partly not so black as the Ethiopians, yet partly more so than the Egyptians. Apollonius, accordingly, when he realized the character of the market, remarked:

"Contrast our good Hellenes: they pretend they cannot live unless one penny begets another and unless they can force up the price of their goods by chaffering or holding them back; and one pretends that he has got a daughter whom it is time to marry, and another that he has got a son who has just reached manhood, and a third that he has to pay his subscription to his club, and a fourth that he is having a house built for him, and a fifth that he would be ashamed of being thought a worse man of business than his father was before him. What a splendid thing then it would be, if wealth were held in less honor and equality flourished a little more and 'if the black iron were left to rust in the ground,' for all men would agree with one another, and the whole earth would be like one brotherhood."

www.livius.org...

reply to post by windword

Arrogant much? Correct in your mind, you mean. Again Lack of evidence doesn't reflect Evidence of absence.

What? You said that the Bible didn't say he wasn't a widower, so that made him a widower. That's the very epitome of "Evidence of absence".

My space alien thing was Reductio ad absurdum, showing that your argument is wrong by extending it to a ridiculous example.

As for the rest of it, you've failed to show that Rabbis (or Jewish men, in general) were required to be married. The article that I cited earlier (and that you unintentionally cited) stated, clearly, that there was absolutely no such requirement prior to 70AD.

That is the evidence -- the Bible doesn't say that Paul was a widower, or that Jewish Rabbis were required to be married, and extra-Biblical writings that say that they were date after the lifetimes of Jesus and Paul. All you're offering is your opinion, which is obviously wrong.

Winword, this one is EASY!

Genesis 1:27-28 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, ..."

Jews call this "the first commandment." (Source - Chabad.org)

I would think that Genesis predates Jesus and Paul, as well as the Talmud.

"The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!" Am I right? Right?

I think this is the definition of "delicious irony."

reply to post by adjensen


You missed the point that no Rabbi can lead a congregation who is not married - it was against Jewish Law which Paul and Jesus followed. Just because fact gets in the way of certain Christian ideals does not mean Jewish observance of the law was ignorred by either Jesus or Paul. They ignorred it at the peril of death and there were plenty of spies for the Pharisees around.

reply to post by Gryphon66

"The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!" Am I right? Right?

She doesn't believe the Bible, but that's beside the point -- Genesis does not say that a Jewish man must be married.

To you, WindWord and Shiloh, this is getting redundant and pointless. I brought an academic article that concludes that the whole "Jewish males must be married" rule came after the lifetimes of Jesus and Paul, and the only evidence in the other direction that I've seen is from those later rules, and quotes from the Bible that don't say that Jewish males must be married. Again, logically, in a patriarchal and polygamous society, such as in ancient Israel, some males would have to be unmarried, because if Abraham is hogging four women to himself, that's three guys that can't find a date.

It doesn't matter if Paul was a widower or not, but there is no evidence that he was, and the only thing that he says on the matter is that he is not married (and doesn't think much of the institution, personally,) so it is irrational to simply assume that he was married and his wife died.

reply to post by Shiloh7

You missed the point that no Rabbi can lead a congregation who is not married - it was against Jewish Law which Paul and Jesus followed.

And what congregation did Paul lead? Where does the Bible ever say that Paul was the leader of a specific synagogue?

reply to post by adjensen

The article you used to back up that claim says that the thrust to make marriage an obligation was inserted afterwards. That kind of puts a question mark on the validity of anything these people put together before or after 70ad.

You also seem to be overlooking the catch 22 in your claim. Winword pointed it out before, Jewish males were obligated by law, prior to the Talmud, to procreate. How is that done, in a society where having sex with a woman makes her your wife, without ending up married?

daskakik
reply to post by adjensen

 

You also seem to be overlooking the catch 22 in your claim. Winword pointed it out before, Jewish males were obligated by law, prior to the Talmud, to procreate. How is that done, in a society where having sex with a woman makes her your wife, without ending up married?

As noted in the article, Jewish males were not required to procreate at any given age (Josephus is noted as having been first married in his thirties,) so, once again, there is no proof that Paul wasn't "waiting things out" when he had his conversion. He wasn't keen on marriage, so it doesn't seem unlikely that he'd put it off.

reply to post by adjensen

You are putting way to much stock in that article. I guess you don't see just how hard the author tries to skew things to have them line up with christian ideas. I mean at the end of the segment you linked to he says:

Since, so far as is known, the Essenes were the major organized group in Palestinian Judaism with an ambivalent attitude toward marriage, it is tempting to suggest a link between them and John the Baptist or Jesus or Paul. But since it is not clear that an unmarried man was as abnormal in first-century Palestine as might be assumed from rabbinic literature, the temptation should be resisted unless there are other strong links between these individuals and the Essene-Qumran community.

Why? What's so bad about them being Essene? Why are "strong links" required to link them to the Essene but unclear ideas of unmarried men in first-century Palestine are more than enough proof to resist that temptation?

adjensen
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

"The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!" Am I right? Right?

She doesn't believe the Bible, but that's beside the point -- Genesis does not say that a Jewish man must be married.

Three thousand years of Judaic practice and Rabbinical teachings disagree with your position. To them, that is PRECISELY what it means. Why are you being so stubborn on this point? It is a well-known fact, we aren't even squinting at this one.

If Paul and Jesus' potential "celibacy" is such an issue for you, go with the fact that the Essenes were ascetics. Of course, Paul was a Pharisee, but it would be easier to argue that Paul was a "secret" Essene than to argue that marriage is not the primary sacrament in Judaism.

That's just absurd.

Or, make the argument that they were "natural" eunuchs, which would excuse them from the marriage requirement.