Was There a Historical Apollonius of Tyana? Robert M. Price . 4 Sandwiches and Sources in the Gospel of Mark David Oliver Smith . 41 Jesus Christ and His Associates from India and Iśauria Ranajit Pal . 59 A Series of Allusions to Peter and Paul in the Sermon on the Mount Samuel Zinner . 97 Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? A Refutation of Dr. Ronald Nash Derreck Bennett . 123 Higher Critical Review Paul McGrane, The Christian Fallacy: The Real Truth about Jesus and the Early History of Christianity Reviewed by Robert M. Price . 139 EDITOR: Robert M. Price MANAGING EDITOR: Alex Criddle The Journal of Higher Criticism is a forthright attempt to hark back to the bold historical hypotheses and critical interpretations associated with the great names of F. C. Baur and Tübingen — though, of course, not necessarily the same constructions. We welcome articles dealing with historical, literary, and history-of-religion issues from the perspective of higher criticism, as well as studies in the history of biblical criticism and the work of major figures in that tradition — leaving to others such worthy subdisciplines as textual criticism, modern literary hermeneutics, and biblical theology. Our primary focus is on the New Testament and Early Christianity, but studies dealing with the Hebrew Scriptures, Judaism, and the Koran will also receive careful consideration. Copyright © Robert M. Price, 2018 Was There a Historical Apollonius of Tyana? Robert M. Price pollonius of Tyana is a fascinating character in his own right, intrinsically deserving of scholarly Aattention. But much contemporary discussion of this ancient superhero is due to his possible relevance to the question of the historical Jesus, for his story as we read it in Philostratus’ third-century hagiography The Life of Apollonius of Tyana bears a striking resemblance to that of the Christian Savior at many points. The parallels raise the question of literary genre, possible literary dependence, and euhemerism (whether a legendary superhero may be a magnification of an actual historical figure whose features may be dimly discerned via historical criticism). My focus is narrower still. It is sometimes observed that in Apollonius we have a strong precedent for Jesus as most scholars see him, as a genuine historical figure subsequently embellished by his admirers. After all, if we can discount the miracle stories attached to the sage of Tyana and still believe he existed, why not Jesus? Both figures conform in a whole host of details to the Mythic Hero Archetype,1 but such figures may result from Man becoming Myth, or from Myth becoming Man. What are the deciding factors? And which was the case with our pair of subjects? I shall suggest that all signs point to Apollonius having originated as a purely mythical hero, precisely like Asclepius, Hercules, Dionysus, and Theseus. Remember, these ancient heroes were also believed to have walked our earth in mortal form and to have worked wonders among 1 Alan Dundes, Otto Rank, and Lord Raglan, In Quest of the Hero. Mythos: The Princeton/Bollingen Series in World Mythology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990). Journal of Higher Criticism 13/1 (Spring 2018), 4-40. PRICE: APOLLONIUS OF TYANA 5 the mortals whom they outwardly resembled. They were supposed to have been begotten upon mortal women by deities visiting from heavenly Olympus. When their earthly missions were complete, these demigods returned to heaven themselves. But they never in fact lived on earth. The only real difference between these ancient superheroes and Apollonius is that his (fictive) sojourn among mankind was imagined to have been more recent. Philostratus informs us that he derived his biographical data on Apollonius from various sources including local legends/folk memories emanating from shrines boasting of visits from the philosopher-thaumaturge (much as tour guides cross their fingers behind their backs while telling visitors to Glastonbury that no less than Joseph of Arimathea, King Arthur, and Queen Guinevere lie buried there). But, he says, his principle source of information was the journal kept by Apollonius’ disciple Damis the Assyrian, who carefully recorded every word and every movement of his master. But all this is a pose, a ruse, no more to be believed than Edgar Rice Burroughs when he claims his novel A Princess of Mars was recounted to him by Captain John Carter who had astrally traveled to the Red Planet. We do not believe, and of course are not intended to believe, that Carter actually encountered green-skinned, four-armed Tharks on Mars. Are we going to believe that Apollonius and company ran across dragons and humanoid giants? A narrative, as D.F. Strauss warned us, has no more credibility than the least believable parts of it.2 And that pretty much poisons the well for Philostratus’ hagiography of the man of Tyana. But even if we did not have these fairy tale elements to contend with, we would still have to regard the whole work as fiction. There is simply no way Damis could have taken 2 David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Trans. George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans). Lives of Jesus Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), pp. 90-91. 6 JOURNAL OF HIGHER CRITICISM down Apollonius’ discourses in such detail and with such eloquence unless the gods had provided him with a tape recorder. As we read, enthralled by the wit and wisdom of the philosopher, we find ourselves suspending disbelief. We look no deeper than the placid surface of the polished narrative, as when we watch a movie or read a novel (which is what we are doing here). It is possible that Philostratus was working from a set of notes taken down by Damis, but what reason is there to think so? Occam’s Razor warns us not to posit redundant and superfluous explanations. If it reads like a work of de novo fiction, why should we complicate things by positing extra ostensible causes for the effect, which do nothing to make the work more understandable? So fiction it is. But why the pose that Apollonius was a figure of recent history? Apollonius supposedly lived in the first century CE. Philostratus was writing about him in the third. Others had written of Apollonius, e.g., Moeragenes, whose account did not meet with Philostratus’ approval. But does the fact that this character, as a character, already existed establish his existence as a historical figure? It only proves that Philostratus was not his inventor. More simply, it is by no means unlikely that Philostratus and Moeragenes were alike simply taking for granted the result of the process of “euhemerizing” an ancient, mythic hero, distilling a whittled-down, hypothetically historical prototype, just as euhemerists like Herodotus posited a historical Hercules, an ancient Steve Reeves. Perhaps the strongest argument for a historical Apollonius has been what New Testament scholars like to call the criterion of embarrassment: does a text retain what looks like a loose end, a clue that the story once read differently? Is a text trying to refute a previous understanding that clashes with the author’s preferred version? Scholars point to Mark’s story of John baptizing Jesus as one of these. The very idea of Jesus needing the ministrations of John proved an embarrassment to PRICE: APOLLONIUS OF TYANA 7 subsequent Christians, and so the other gospels rewrite the scene to make it theologically palatable. Who would have made up such a story? Thus, apologists argue that Jesus’ baptism must actually have taken place. But I have argued that this reasoning is fatally flawed. The contrast need not be between original events and later belief. It is just as likely that the embarrassment to later belief is merely an earlier form of belief. That is, perhaps Mark saw nothing amiss in his account of the Jordan baptism, which he may have intended as an example for Christian readers to follow.3 And as such the story might have been Mark’s invention, not history at all. In the case of Apollonius, scholars have reasoned that, if Philostratus felt he had to clean up his hero’s reputation, making him a sublime philosopher instead of a charlatan conjurer, wouldn’t that imply that Apollonius actually was a magician? Why would he invent such a strike against Apollonius? But this fails, too. It seems rather that Philostratus was trying to rebut a general disdain of philosophy and philosophers by those who considered them no more than frauds and parasites, just as we read in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles how pagan authorities, baffled at the Encratite celibacy gospel, had its preachers, Paul, Thomas, et. al., arrested as trouble-making wizards. Nero was opposed to philosophy, because he suspected its devotees to be addicted to magic, and of being diviners in disguise; and at last the philosopher’s mantle brought its wearers before the law courts, as if it were a mere cloak of the divining art. I will not mention other names, but Musonius of Babylon, a man only second to Apollonius, was thrown into prison for the crime of being a sage, and there lay in danger of death; and he would have died for all his gaoler cared, if it had not been 3 Charles Guignebert, Jesus. Trans. S.H. Hooke (New Hyde Park: University Books, 1956), pp. 147-148. 8 JOURNAL OF HIGHER CRITICISM for the strength of his constitution. (4:35)4 I want to start with a form-critical analysis of the miracle stories starring Apollonius in order to determine, if possible, where they came from and what purpose they served. Do they seem to presuppose or imply an origin in a genuine historical figure or only the evolution of a mythic character like Hercules or Asclepius? And what light do they shed on claims for an eyewitness origin of the narratives? Nativity Stories To his mother, just before [Apollonius] was born, there came an apparition of Proteus, who changes his form so much in Homer, in the guise of an Egyptian demon.