Talk:Apollonius of Tyana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
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)
Contents |
[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)
[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)
[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).
[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.
