Vridar: Tim Widowfield, Euhemerism and Richard Carrier

[MrMacSon]

Uh, no. There is a difference between already existing Gods (Zeus & Hermes) coming to visit mankind as evidenced by miracles, and popular deifying of heroes on account of the benefits they bestowed on mankind.

I'm not going to exchange volleys on this, and don't get the idea that I am being critical of your contributions, but you seem to be stuck on this "euhemerizing" thing, almost fanatically so, citing Carrier's writings as if proof texts like Christians do the Bible. I do not get into "apologetics" whether Christian or atheist.

Euhemerus: Great men like Kings and Heroes > did wonderful things for the benefit of mankind > were popularly deified. Popular deification of human beings was not unheard of even in his day (late 4th century BCE, although usually after their death), and he was promoting this option for his patron Cassander, the king of Macedon (after he dropped dead, of course). It was an honorary "deification".

But to say that a Mythical God being imagined or presented as walking among men in some made-up historical context is just not the same thing. While many of Euhemerus' contemporaries might have believed in the Greek god's as supernatural entities possessing great powers, this was in an age where Plato and Aristotle had been questioning just what exactly these mythical gods were, sometimes treating them like glorified daemons who were part of the World Soul, who had little or no influence on mankind except in some astrological sense as the "gods" (daemons) governing the Sun, Moon, and the seven planets. Euhemerus presented the Greek gods as being actually deified individuals, and not all-powerful Gods. These deified men were not presented as having walks on earth in recent times, but ages ago.

If you want to believe that Euhemerus was suggesting that the Mythic Gods came to walk on earth in recent historical past, as kings and heroes, then more power to you, but that is not what he actually said.

So, anyhow, were done with this as far as I'm concerned. (You did, after all, suggest that I "get f**ked")

DCH

There is a lot to unpack here, so I may do it over more than one post.

I'm only "stuck" on "this euhemerizing thing" b/c I think it is persistently & repeatedly being misrepresented: some of that seems to be due to confusion, yet some seems to an attempt & desire to obfuscate the idea that the synoptic gospels (and other christian texts) reflect the development of a human entity - Jesus - as the Christ (where the notion of a Christ had previously, in antiquity, been a celestial angel-saviour - I had that perception, before I had even heard of Richard Carrier).

It is not clear what you mean by "citing Carrier's writings as if proof texts like Christians do the Bible" (perhaps there is a word such as a conjunction missing).

Regardless, I only cite Carrier to try to emphasize the concept relative to others' repeated attempts to misrepresent it.


Nobody knows exactly what Euhemerus said: not that that matters that much; the issue is that his name has been given to the concept of anthropomorphizing gods. Yes,

Euhemerus [is said to have] presented the Greek gods as being actually deified individuals, and not all-powerful Gods. These deified men were not presented as having walks on earth in recent times, but ages ago.

The application of the concept of euhemerization to Jesus (allegedly of Nazareth) is different conceptually & chronologically. There was no previous, defined or named god - just a proposition there was a nebulous notion of a Christ-angel or an angel-Savior (probably in different contexts in different cults), and a proposition that the Pauline texts encapsulate that notion.

It is not clear if Mark or the other synoptic writers knew or would have known they were euhemerising such a Christ-angel or an angle-Savior, if that is what they did. It's possible later editors/redactors contributed to the text, too. (I wonder if Jesus was a real,tangible preacher-dude, but I think if he was he is more likely to be a 2nd century person than a 1st century one).

Obviously, the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth is a Christ who was anthropomorphised is a recent & retrospective one; contrary to the longer-standing proposition that Jesus was deified as Christ.

Furthermore, perhaps it is Carrier (and me) who is euhemerizing Jesus, not the synoptic writers.

[MrMacSon]

Were Paul & Barnabas euhemerized in Acts 14 -

(NIV)
11 When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!”
12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.

They are said to have replied -

14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15 “Friends, why are you doing this? We too are only human, like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them...

Interestingly, in between, Acts 14:13 has -

13 The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them ...

and later Acts 14:18-

18 Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

and Acts 14:19 -

19 Then some Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and won the crowd over. They stoned Paul and dragged him outside the city, thinking he was dead.
20 But after the disciples had gathered around him, he got up and went back into the city. The next day he and Barnabas left for Derbe.

Uh, no. There is a difference between already existing Gods (Zeus & Hermes) coming to visit mankind as evidenced by miracles, and popular deifying of heroes on account of the benefits they bestowed on mankind.

My post about Paul & Hermes & Barnabas & Zeus on this thread was about the crowd wanting to sacrifice to them as if they were deities or, tongue-in-cheek, that that passage raises the question that the deities Hermes & Zeus had been 'euhemerized' as Paul & Barnabas ie. the passage could have been borrowed from another tradition and used in the Christian text.

[MrMacSon]

So far this Thread reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Based on the Merriam-Webster definition of euhemerism -

interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events

I'd argue that euhemerism is re-interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events

If the major components of Carrier's argument are:

• 1) The only significant extant Christian author before GMark is Paul.
  
  2) Paul's Jesus is primarily mythical.
  
  3) GMark's Jesus has a historical setting.

Than Carrier's argument seems to be supported by the definition above (at least regarding GMark).

I agree.

Widowfield is clear that he thinks Carrier's use of euhemerism is wrong but Widowfield's related argument is unclear. He needs to:

• 1) Clearly provide what he thinks are the major parts of Carrier's related argument.
  
  2) Clearly demonstrate why one or more parts of 1) are in error.

I agree.