Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by maryhelena »

Tim Widowfield, over on the Vridar blog, has an article taking Carrier to task re his use of Euhemerism.

What Is Euhemerism?

http://vridar.org/2016/01/25/what-is-euhemerism/
  • Was Jesus euhemerized?

    So if Carrier says Jesus was euhemerized, then who were the euhemerists? Specifically, here’s the big question: Was the author of the Gospel of Mark a euhemerist? Carrier says:

    Mark’s euhemerization would logically transfer Jesus’ demonic enemies to earthly ones, leading to the allegory of internecine betrayal in the Judas narrative (where the whole world conspires to kill him: Romans, Jews and ‘Christians’). (Carrier, 2014, p. 560, n. 62)


    Wait. So, were all the gospels really euhemerizations of a cosmic Jesus?

    The Gospels were simply constructed to euhemerize Jesus, as all mythical demigods had been (Element 45) . . . (Carrier, 2014, p. 613)

    I want to be generous, but I can’t make any sense these statements. For Carrier to be correct, then the word euhemerize would have to be identically synonymous with historicize, and that cannot be the case. If Carrier is right, we would have to leave aside the bulk of what Euhemerus and later euhemerists said and did.

    Were the evagelists rationalizing Jesus? Were they desupernaturalizing him? Absolutely not. They may well indeed have been historicizing the life of Jesus on Earth. And that’s a perfectly fine way to put it. Let me be clear: My quibble isn’t with Carrier’s overall thesis. I merely contend that his use of the terms euhemerist, euhemerism, and euhemerize conflicts with Euhemerus’s own writings and all euhemerist practitioners thereafter.
    ...
  • Consequently, taking into account the writings of euhemerists in the past as well as its usage by scholars in modern times, euhemerism cannot refer to the gospels,

    ...
    Similarly, “doing what Euhemerus did” would be to claim that certain beings we now think of as divine (or semi-divine or heroic) are really just ordinary men and women who once lived among us, were revered because of their good works, and eventually became thought of as gods.

    To think of euhemerism as something other than this specific method of rationalization and demythologizing is to misunderstand its proper usage and to misrepresent its well-documented history.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by maryhelena »

A new book on Euhemerism is due out later this year. (August re amazon.com and December re amazon.uk)

Nikolas Roubekas has been mentioned a number of times in the various forum threads on euhemerism. He has previously written a number of articles on this subject.

------------------------------------------

An Ancient Theory of Religion: The Reception of Euhemerism from Antiquity to the Present
(Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies)

by Nikolas Roubekas (Author)

This book examines Euhemerism – a theory of religion developed by Euhemerus of Messene in the late 4th through early 3rd centuries BCE – tracing the history and reception of the theory in antiquity and in early Christianity, where it was adopted and reshaped for particular religious and ideological reasons. It shows how and why Euhemerism arose, how it was used, and how it significantly influenced theoretical discussions of religion from antiquity onward.

Scholars have identified the euhemeristic tradition in various ancient and contemporary religious phenomena around the world: from the worship of the ancestors in the traditional African religions and the deified kings of the Mesoamerican civilizations to the Japanese Emperor in modern day Japan. This book examines those phenomena alongside the ancient theory of religion itself, including the motivations for its adoption, alterations of the theory in later periods, and conversion and identity formation. An Ancient Theory of Religion assumes no prior knowledge of Euhemerism and will be of interest to scholars working in classical reception, religious studies, and early Christian studies.

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Theory-Re ... 871&sr=1-1

-----------------------------------------
Nickolas P. Roubekas is a teaching fellow in the Department of Divinity and Religious Studies at the University of Aberdeen, UK. He is author of several scholarly articles on Euhemerism in both international scholarly journals and edited collections.

Link to a number of articles on euhemerism by Nickolas Roubekas.

https://aberdeen.academia.edu/NRoubekas
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by MrMacSon »

maryhelena wrote:Tim Widowfield, over on the Vridar blog, has an article taking Carrier to task re his use of Euhemerism.

What Is Euhemerism?

http://vridar.org/2016/01/25/what-is-euhemerism/
  • Was Jesus euhemerized?

    So if Carrier says Jesus was euhemerized, then who were the euhemerists? Specifically, here’s the big question: Was the author of the Gospel of Mark a euhemerist? Carrier says:
    • Mark’s euhemerization would logically transfer Jesus’ demonic enemies to earthly ones, leading to the allegory of internecine betrayal in the Judas narrative (where the whole world conspires to kill him: Romans, Jews and ‘Christians’). (Carrier, 2014, p. 560, n. 62)
    Wait. So, were all the gospels really euhemerizations of a cosmic Jesus?
    • The Gospels were simply constructed to euhemerize Jesus, as all mythical demigods had been (Element 45)... (Carrier, 2014; p613)
    I want to be generous, but I can’t make any sense these statements. For Carrier to be correct, then the word euhemerize would have to be identically synonymous with historicize*, and that cannot be the case.
* The word euhemerize is synonymous with 'anthropomophize gods'; so it would be that narrative that would be historicized.

Whether Jesus' demonic legends existed before Jesus was anthropomorphized, or after, may be beside-the-point.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by maryhelena »

MrMacSon wrote:
maryhelena wrote:Tim Widowfield, over on the Vridar blog, has an article taking Carrier to task re his use of Euhemerism.

What Is Euhemerism?

http://vridar.org/2016/01/25/what-is-euhemerism/
  • Was Jesus euhemerized?

    So if Carrier says Jesus was euhemerized, then who were the euhemerists? Specifically, here’s the big question: Was the author of the Gospel of Mark a euhemerist? Carrier says:
    • Mark’s euhemerization would logically transfer Jesus’ demonic enemies to earthly ones, leading to the allegory of internecine betrayal in the Judas narrative (where the whole world conspires to kill him: Romans, Jews and ‘Christians’). (Carrier, 2014, p. 560, n. 62)
    Wait. So, were all the gospels really euhemerizations of a cosmic Jesus?
    • The Gospels were simply constructed to euhemerize Jesus, as all mythical demigods had been (Element 45)... (Carrier, 2014; p613)
    I want to be generous, but I can’t make any sense these statements. For Carrier to be correct, then the word euhemerize would have to be identically synonymous with historicize*, and that cannot be the case.
* The word euhemerize is synonymous with 'anthropomophize gods'; so it would be that narrative that would be historicized.
And you have a quote from a scholarly work that supports that statement..

Anthropomorphize is to ''attribute human form or personality''; to attribute human form or personality to things not human''. (Merriam Webster online)


The gospel Jesus walked on water, cured illness, raised the dead etc - non-human attributes.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by outhouse »

maryhelena wrote: Wait. So, were all the gospels really euhemerizations of a cosmic Jesus?


Not a chance.

I see Carrier doing what creationist do here. He starts with Doherty's conclusion, then molded the evidence despite logical fallacies into said conclusion.

Euhemerization is the vehicle that takes the evidence to the conclusion IMHO
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by outhouse »

maryhelena wrote: So if Carrier says Jesus was euhemerized, then who were the euhemerists?

He cannot explain that with a reasonable explanation.


What I believe this comes down to is, for this to work you would need a longer track record of these traditions that would show an evolution from a single community/source. This is assumed I'm sure before written text, but still relying on assumption only. Even if it was correct, he cannot use the same criticism for his work, he is applying to the current state of historicity and get a credible conclusion.

BUT

The evidence all points to a wide spread origin of the movement with widespread beliefs whether a jesus lived or did not live.

The mythology and theology we do see exactly matches perfectly to a T, multiple communities reacting to the mythology and theology surrounding martyrdom of a character paralleling the Emperors divinity as son of god, these same Hellenist were worshipping weeks before.

So getting back to your point

Who were the multiple authors, and what do we really know about them?

Hellenist

Hellenist looking to follow the one god concept as a better alternative then worshipping a corrupt politician as son of god

Multiple different communities with different views on adherence to the laws in Judaism

Wide spread geographically all over the Roman Empire

Passion for Judaism

Believed a man had died and sacrificed himself for the good of the people.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by outhouse »

maryhelena wrote:
The gospel Jesus walked on water, cured illness, raised the dead etc - non-human attributes.
Non sequitur really.

Which I believe Anthropomorphize is correct and all scholars for that matter follow to some degree.

But its part of the rhetorical mythology you get when creating a deity to compete against a corrupt politicians divinity. Whether or not a man actually existed.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by outhouse »

MrMacSon wrote: Whether Jesus' demonic legends existed before Jesus was anthropomorphized, or after, may be beside-the-point.

I don't know here. It should apply.

We know the OT were heavily plagiarized and many legends existed there before being used in any NT text.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by Giuseppe »

Pagans like Celsus were the real euhemerists. Their argument:

1) Jesus was a bastard and an impostor and a very bad bad hateful person.
2) therefore Jesus existed and was a mere man later deified.

Note that Eusebius used the same argument to prove that the pagan gods were deified men.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

Post by MrMacSon »

outhouse wrote:
maryhelena wrote: So if Carrier says Jesus was euhemerized, then who were the euhemerists?
He cannot explain that with a reasonable explanation.

What I believe this comes down to is, for this to work you would need a longer track record of these traditions that would show an evolution from a single community/source. This is assumed I'm sure before written text, but still relying on assumption only ...
You contradict that assertion about a single community source with your next statement -
outhouse wrote: The evidence all points to a wide spread origin of the movement with widespread beliefs whether a jesus lived or did not live.
This makes sense though -
outhouse wrote:The mythology and theology we do see exactly matches perfectly to a T, multiple communities reacting to the mythology and theology surrounding martyrdom of a character paralleling the Emperors divinity as son of god, these same Hellenist were worshipping weeks before.
Post Reply