II. The Role of Magic in Antiquity
II. 3. Apollonius of Tyana
Late Antique authors often followed the precedent of earlier authors such as Catullus or Pliny in casting magicians as disreputable creatures. Lucian of Samosota criticized the life and death of the Cynic philosopher Peregrinus, once a Christian, who manipulated crowds into believing his magical ability. Lucian argued that “he manufactures myths and repeats certain oracles…to the purport that he is to become a guardian spirit of the night; it is plain, too, that he already covets altars and expects to be imaged in gold…it would be nothing unnatural if, among all the dolts that there are, some should be found to assert that they were relieved of quartan fevers by him, and that in the dark they had encountered the
guardian spirit of the night!”46 Lucian criticized Peregrinus as vain-glorious, all the way up to his self-immolation. But even after his death, his followers still believed in his resurrection, and reported witnessing his resurrected body dressed in white raiment.47 Lucian’s story mirrors the Christians and also indicated the need and desire of people to believe in the ineffable, even when the circumstances of the story are quite ridiculous and beyond logic.
The magical man such as Peregrinus fulfills such a desire. Lucian provided an insight into the ability of magicians to amass a vast following in Late Antiquity. This was a pattern that Apollonius of Tyana certainly followed.
was an apology for Apollonius, not as a magician but as a miracle worker with a divine nature. Apollonius performed healings, exorcisms, and even resurrections, but according to Philostratus he was not a magician since he never accepted remuneration and performed his miracles without any spells or sacrifices, but accomplished them through his divine nature.48 Thus, Philostratus’ distinction between magic and miracle and what constituted a magician was perilously thin, and his task of defending Apollonius was admittedly difficult.
Philostratus pointed out that Apollonius purportedly lived with magi in Persia and India, had the ability of foresight and exorcized demons, all marks of a magician.49 His primary defense against these charges was to characterize Apollonius as a wonder working figure, not like any ordinary magician.
As a neo-Pythagorean himself, Philostratus was motivated to defend Apollonius on charges of magic, however his motivations to write such a revisionist biography were also political in nature. The philosopher embarked on his vita at the behest of the empress Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus, at the beginning of the third century. The empress convinced Philostratus to defend Apollonius and refute any slanderous accusations that he was merely a magician. Apollonius had been dead at least a hundred years and the empress coaxed Philostratus to write a book describing the life and work of this landmark neo- Pythagorean figure. It is possible that Philostratus had Christ firmly in mind while he was constructing the vita of Apollonius. The empress commissioned Philostratus not only to defend Apollonius but to construct a pagan response to the Christians and to author a pagan gospel, highlighting a Christ-like figure.50 Like the gospel passion narratives, Philostratus
48 Philostratus, Life. 7.38. When Apollonius removes his fetters in prison.
49 Philostratus, Life. 1.2.
50 Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 260.
asserted that Apollonius, like Christ, was arrested, imprisoned, and awaited execution. But unlike Christ, Apollonius escaped from his fetters, overcoming his penalty, and proving that he was the superior miracle worker.51 Thus, Philostratus’ work was a pagan appropriation of the figure of Jesus.
In his text, Philostratus claimed that Julia was approached by a relative of Damis, providing the memoirs of Apollonius.52 Philostratus apparently possessed some written recollections of the life of Apollonius by some of Apollonius’ disciples. Philostratus claimed to have based much of his findings on the memoirs of Apollonius’ disciple Damis; however, it is questionable how much, if any, he borrowed from a supposed memoir of Damis.
Damis was not purely a straw man for Philostratus, some of the author’s stories may have had a basis in the actual writings of Damis.53 Philostratus likely credited Damis to give his biography a sense of legitimacy, providing eyewitness testimony to the life of the man from Tyana. Regardless of whether Damis was fictitious or not, the miracle stories Philostratus recorded did have some basis in reality; it was not all pure fiction. Philostratus could not invent every story involving the man from Tyana.
In Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius, Apollonius was a neo-Pythagorean holy man and miracle worker who lived from 69-98 CE. He purportedly learned his trade from groups of magi in Persia and Brahmin priests in India.54 Philostratus emphasized that Apollonius was, in fact, divine and was conversant with gods and goddesses such as Apollo and Athena.55
51 See Philostratus, Life. 7.38 and below.
52 Philostratus, Life. 1.3.
53 See Conybeare’s introduction to the LCL edition of the Life., ix.
54 Philostratus, Life. 1.18.
Apollonius resided at one of the Asclepieia in Aegae and gained a reputation as a healer.
Philostratus credited Apollonius as performing at least 107 works of miracles.56
In Philostratus’ work, Apollonius treated everyone without discrimination or any requirement of faith. Apollonius did not make any demands of his supplicants, thus setting him apart from healing gods like Asclepius.57 Though distinct, Philostratus found it
beneficial to associate Apollonius with Asclepius. In his work, he asserted that Apollonius lived at the temple at Aegae as a child. During this time, Apollonius learned the traits of a healer, leading the god to tell a priest that he was glad to have Apollonius there as a witness.58 At one point, a man dying of dropsy who took comfort in drink came to the temple seeking a cure, and the god refused. The man went to Apollonius who berated him for his foolishness but provided a diagnosis.59 Philostratus mentioned this incident to associate Apollonius with Asclepius and to exhibit Apollonius providing wisdom to the ignorant.
Some of the healing accounts Philostratus preserved were rather mundane, such as a story of Apollonius healing a man with a paralyzed hand: “Another man had his hand
55 Philostratus, Life. 1.11. Christopher P. Jones has contributed a recent LCL translation of the Life., however F.C. Conybeare’s translation has been the standard for just under a century (and has a still very useful introduction) and it is his work that has been cited in this dissertation.
56 Most of these miracles, by Morton Smith’s admission, were not healings but exorcisms, see Smith, Jesus the Magician (San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1978), 109. Also see Simon Swain, “Defending Hellenism:
Philostratus, In Honour of Apollonius,” in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians (ed. by Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 157.
57 Cleimenes of Argus related how he dreamed that Asclepius ordered him to take a cold bath to cure his affliction. When he refused, the god proclaimed he would not treat the cowardly. See Inscriptiones Graecae, 4.1.121-122; Stele 2.37 (Edelstein T. 423); and Johannes Wolmarans, “Asclepius of Epidaurus and Jesus of Nazareth,” in Acta Patristica et Byzantina 7 (1996), 122.
58 Philostratus, Life. 1.9.
59 Philostratus, Life. 1.10.
paralyzed, but left their presence in full possession of his limb.”60 These accounts have little to do with magic, and in Philostratus’ opinion, were more evidence of Apollonius’
attunement to nature, as the author went on to describe Apollonius’ special insight into the flight of sparrows.61 It was Apollonius’ unique discipline that allowed him to have special insight into the divine and effect cures. Philostratus had Apollonius describe his own theology, claiming that some may worship him as a god, although he never ordered them to;
his only concern is the betterment of man.62 Other miracles of Apollonius were more embellished and more magical, as in the healing of a boy bitten by a mad dog
Apollonius reflected a moment and said, ‘O Damis, the dog is a white shaggy sheep- dog, as big as an Amphilochian hound, and he is standing at a certain fountain trembling all over, for he is longing to drink the water, but at the same time is afraid of it. Bring him to me to the bank of the river, where there are the wrestling
grounds, merely telling him that it is I who call him.’ So Damis dragged the dog along, and it crouched at the feet of Apollonius…he bade the dog lick the wound all round where he had bitten the boy, so that the agent of the wound might in turn be its physician and healer.63
Philostratus also emphasized the great similarity between Apollonius and Christ. He claimed that Apollonius was chaste like Christ and never fell prey to sexual passion.64 Both figures were unjustly imprisoned by the authorities. Apollonius refused to eat meat, wear shoes, shave, or cut his hair, all in accordance with followers of the Pythagorean cult and similar to Christ. Magicians such as Apollonius were not normally considered healers;
rather, they were revered for their ascetic lifestyle and not their specific actions of theurgy.65
60 Philostratus, Life. 3.39.
61 Philostratus, Life. 4.3.
62 Philostratus, Life. 8.7.
63 Philostratus, Life. 6.43 (Conybeare, LCL).
64 Philostratus, Life. 1.13.
Apollonius was not primarily esteemed for his miracles, but in the manner he lived his life.
He embodied the ideal of perfection, and the legends surrounding his life were effectively mined by Philostratus to portray Apollonius as a miracle worker similar to Christ.
In Philostratus’ text, Apollonius was not like an ordinary human.66 He describes Apollonius’ release from his shackles in prison as a moment when an onlooker realized that
“Apollonius’ nature (was) godlike and more than human. Without sacrifice, or prayer, or a single word, he made light of his chains, and then put his leg back into them and acted like a prisoner.”67 Philostratus portrayed Apollonius as a Christ-like figure who did not need to rely on action or incantation to produce divine works. Upon his death, he appeared to his disciples proving his own immortal nature and the immortality of the soul. A doubter much like the apostle Thomas in John 20:24 disbelieved Apollonius’ immortality. In his sleep, the holy man approached him in a dream convincing him of his divine status and the
truthfulness of his teachings.68 Thus, with the doubting Thomas figure and the dream revelation, Philostratus’ Apollonius resembled Christ and Asclepius, appearing superior to both.
Philostratus’ depiction was often fantastical, and the author took great care to describe Apollonius’ abilities as a healer and miracle worker. His characterization of
Apollonius as a miracle worker bore a strong resemblance to Christ, and it was no accident.
Apollonius was depicted as performing successful resurrections that are akin to Christ, one
65 Robin M. Jensen, Understanding Early Christian Art (New York: Routledge, 2000), 123 and see René Josef Rüttimann, Asclepius and Jesus: The Form, Character and Status of the Asclepius Cult in the Second Century CE and its Influence on Early Christianity Harvard University, 1987 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1987), 191.
For an examination of the term “theurgy” and its distinction from magic, see Chapter Seven, 235.
66 Philostratus, Life. 1.28.
67 Philostratus, Life. 7.38 (Conybeare, LCL); also see 1.31-32.
68 Philostratus, Life. 8.31.
even including a person on a bier recalling Luke 7:11-17: “A girl had died just in the hour of her marriage, and the bridegroom was following her bier lamenting…Apollonius then witnessing their grief, said ‘Put down the bier, for I will stay the tears that you are shedding for this maiden’… but merely touching her and whispering in secret some spell over her, at once woke up the maiden from her seeming death; and the girl spoke out loud, and returned to her father’s house, just as Alcestis did when she was brought back to life by Hercules.”69 Philostratus could not resist solidifying the pagan claim to miracle working by inserting a reference to the Hercules myth of resurrecting Alcestis. By rooting Apollonius’ miracle in the pagan tradition, Philostratus emphasized superiority to any Christian ownership of resurrection miracles.
It is possible that Philostratus’ association of Apollonius and Christ was intentional.
Scholars have been resistant to adopt the view that Philostratus intended his work to counter the gospels. Their restraint is in part due to the common feature of exorcists and magicians performing feats in a Late Antique context.70 However, Philostratus’ Apollonius was not depicted as a common magician, but as a divine miracle man like Christ.
Morton Smith made the connection between Apollonius and Jesus by claiming that both were miracle workers, were persecuted for their use of magic, and taught an inner circle of disciples.71 Both figures ascended to heaven upon their death and continued to appear to their followers. Both figures were believed to be descendents of gods and were impugned as magicians by their enemies. Smith believed Philostratus intended to create an Apollonian
69 Philostratus, Life. 4.45 (Conybeare, LCL).
70 Conybeare laments this trend in his introduction. See the LCL edition of the Life., xv.
71 Smith, Jesus the Magician, 85.
gospel to circumvent any association between Apollonius and magic.72 Smith claimed that Philostratus and the gospel writers’ defense of their clients implicate them as magicians.
Even in light of his defense, by including miracles and exorcisms, Philostratus leaves his hero open to suspicion as a magician. Smith, however, is a problematic source to consider.
Smith did not provide the most persuasive argument as he has been accused of manipulating gospel citations to his advantage, and disregarding the rather large issue that magic was universally maligned by pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity.73
Similarly, the gospel writers needed to downplay any magical traits in Christ. Smith argued that the gospel writers attempted to minimize Jesus’ magical attributes; however the miracles were the marks of the magician.74 He claimed the importance of magic in the first century is found in the gospel of Matthew in the infancy narrative with the appearance of the magi. Smith contended that the visit of the three magi to honor Jesus’ birth identifies Jesus as possibly the supreme magus.75 This particular argument is unlikely given the symbolism attached in later centuries to the magi as foreign representatives of the known world identifying the sacrificial role the infant Christ would play.
Smith’s identification of Jesus as a magician is also problematic, and has been rebutted on the grounds that the Christians would never intentionally characterize their savior as a type of figure that was much maligned in Late Antiquity. Origen’s response to
72 Smith, Jesus the Magician, 87.
73 Graham Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 153. Howard Clark Kee, Medicine, Miracle, and Magic in New Testament Times (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 114. Bernd Kollmann catalogues the various viewpoints on Jesus the Magician in his, Jesus und die Christen als Wundertäter: Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1996), 36- 38.
74 Smith, Jesus the Magician, 87-93.
75 Smith, Jesus the Magician, 86 and also Life. 1.31, Philostratus depicts an interesting scene where Apollonius sacrifices using the element of frankincense. If the magi were understood as magicians, the notion that they were paying homage to the supreme magus of Christ is dubious, implying that there was a hierarchy amongst Late Antique magicians.
Celsus, reminding him that Jesus did not use incantations, could work just as well against Smith.76 While words are important in magic and they are endowed with power, Graham Twelftree notes that Jesus’ formulae are unquestionably different than those used by
magicians.77 Paul Corby Finney argues that surely by the fourth century Christians had been programmed to reject all comparisons of Christ to a “smarmy magician.”78 Identifying Jesus as a magician is far from assured.
Still, Philostratus attempted to defend Apollonius on any charge of magic. He claimed that magic relies upon proper technique while Apollonius relied upon divine wisdom and monastic discipline to effect miracles.79 Philostratus argued that magic results in success or failure based upon method. He denounced magic as a fraudulent art that is used primarily for love charms.80 Apollonius’ power was beyond magical technique, and Philostratus asserted Apollonius as an utmost philosopher. Philostratus’ main goal in his work was to rehabilitate Apollonius’ reputation. Associating Apollonius with Christ was perhaps one stated aim; another was to label Apollonius a philosopher. Calling Apollonius a
“philosopher” accomplished this desire, as the distinction between philosopher and theurgy is very fine and will be discussed in Chapter Seven.
76 Origen, Cels. 1.68.
77 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 153. Kee points out the inconsistent use of the gospel accounts by Smith, such as leaving out the eschatological implications, and ridicules his argument as based upon his “eclectic personal preferences,” in Medicine, Miracle, and Magic in New Testament Times, 114. Spells were usually spoken softly and guarded securely in order to prevent theft, see Theissen, The Miracle Stories, 64.
78 Paul Corby Finney, “Do You Think God is a Magician?” in Akten des Symposiums früchristliche Sarkophage, Deutches Archäologisches Institut, (1999), 106.
79 Philostratus, Life. 8.7. Apollonius credited his light diet for enabling him to foresee the plague of Ephesus:
“This diet, my king, guards my senses in a kind of indescribable ether or clear air, and forbids them to contract any foul or turbid matter, and allows me to discern, as in the sheen of a looking-glass, everything that is happening or is to be” (Conybeare, LCL).
80 Philostratus, Life. 7.39.
Philostratus attached the label of philosopher to Apollonius by reporting that emperor Vespasian sought his advice on a trip to Egypt: “If all men, Apollonius, were disposed to be philosophers in the same spirit as yourself, then the lot not less of philosophy than of poverty would be an extremely happy one; for your philosophy is pure and
disinterested, and your poverty is voluntary. Farewell.”81 Philostratus not only provided an imperial endorsement, he distinguished Apollonius as a philosopher and not a purveyor of depraved superstition, granting him even more legitimacy. He depicted Vespasian’s visit with Apollonius taking place in a temple, a venue that is not the realm of sorcerers, further distancing Apollonius from charges of magic. Noting that his poverty was voluntary also cast Apollonius in a favorable light. He was characterized as a man of the people who paid attention to the poor.
The response Apollonius evoked from Lucian and Dio Cassius indicated that Apollonius’ notoriety was fairly widespread. Just as Philostratus characterized Apollonius as a divine miracle worker, other writers such as Lucian and Dio Cassius characterized him as a magus in the full negative sense the word may imply, and insinuated that he had a stained reputation.82 Accordingly, Lucian ridiculed Alexander of Abonoteichus as a follower of Asclepius, and moreover as a follower of Apollonius:
Among others, he had an admirer who was a quack, one of those who advertise
‘enchantments, miraculous incantations, charms for your love-affairs, ‘sendings’ for your enemies, disclosures of buried treasure, and successions to estates. As this man saw that he was an apt lad, more than ready to assist him in his affairs, and that the boy was quite as much enamored with his roguery as he with the boy’s beauty, he gave him a thorough education and constantly made use of him as helper, servant, and acolyte. He himself was professedly a public physician…this teacher and admirer of his was a man of Tyana by birth, one of those who had been followers of
81 Philostratus, Life., 8.7 (Conybeare, LCL).
82 Smith, Jesus the Magician, 88.