Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

[outhouse]

Here is where I received my foundation after 3 years of self study and debate. Its a great course by and certain aspects opened my eyes but not like the Rhetoric lesson.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/r ... /lecture-1

Overview

This course approaches the New Testament not as scripture, or a piece of authoritative holy writing, but as a collection of historical documents.

asserting they're 'historic documents" is spurious

I "took" this course via TouTube shortly after it was originally posted (2010ish?). It is a very good introductory course and pretty much presents the consensus view of how historical the NT is-IIRC saying it's mostly legendary but some historical foundation.

It's not in depth, but it's not supposed to be. The lecturer is pretty good at keeping it interesting. I also remember that he was a conservative but snappy dresser. I'd recommend this course and the one on the OT if you want an introductory look or refresher.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh ... dMUujXfyWi

Thanks, wanted to take that when I get more time.

I agree on your assessment on Dales class, there are a few tid bits that I hung on to, I often use in describing how ancient and wild some of the things the average men believed.
[like the little people running around inside your body]

[maryhelena]

Here are some other examples of how the word/concept has been used by scholars. The point I'm trying to make is that the terms/concept of euhemerization is used in a variety of situations that basically come down to historicizing a non-historical entity/deity.

[All my emphasis]

"Mabon is the euhemerization of the continental Celtic deity Maponos son of Matrona around whom there grew in Britain a legend of his early abduction and imprisonment. In his later euhemerized form as Mabon son of Modron he was primarily a northern British figure appearing in Kynverching dynasty poetry5 as an otherworldly protector and/or raider of cattle."
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/CULint.htm

I found no definition of euhemerism in this article. The term 'historicization' would have served the writer' argument.

"Scholars of Chinese religion often point out that there are few cosmogonic myths in China. From an early period and at least until the introduction of Indian Buddhism, there appear to be no native Chinese stories about how or why the universe came into being. Chinese seem to have had little interest in the matter. Nevertheless, there are many cosmological myths, myth that explain how the universe and its multiple relations work. These cosmological myths display a peculiarly Chinese flavor. Like much of Chinese thought and literature, cosmological stories are cast in historical terms. While they may at one time have described non-historical beings, gods, spirits, in the versions in which they come down to us they have been euhemerized - i.e. they have been written as though they were biographical stories of great culture heroes. The focus of such stories is to explain what and how China as a society came to be as a product of human effort and to recommend to later generations lessons to be emulated."
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/religionc ... ology.html

As to Chinese usage of *euhemerism* - this is more correctly defined by Derk Bodde as reverse euhemerism:

http://www.writework.com/essay/reverse- ... re-general

In his essay Derk Bodde discusses both the process of euhemerization and its reverse. He relates the theory of Euhemerus, which states that, "the origin of myth is to be found in actual history, and that the gods and demigods of mythology were, to start with, actual human beings" (Bodde 48). Bodde explains that most myths have a basis in reality. People who once lived have, over time, become more than they were in their lives. Stories told of these people were handed down through the years with much embellishing have turned the real characters of the story into people or creatures so fantastic that their lives become myths and their actions too godlike to be human.

Bodde goes on to discuss the reverse process of euhemerization as used by Chinese scholars. He refers to it only as euhemerization, but says of it, " [a]s commonly used by writers on Chinese mythology, however, "euhemerization" denotes precisely the opposite process [to the one just described]: the transformation of what were once myths and gods into seemingly authentic history and human beings" (Bodde 48). Apparently, Chinese historians, upon reading ancient myths, would change the gods and demons in them to actual people; they would also change all incredible events to those more believable, or erase them entirely. In this manner well-intentioned historians have nearly eradicated the myths and legends of ancient China.

"Like the Sermones, the diversity of the Eupolemius reflects a number of the period's intellectual preoccupations: a bit of anticurial satire (e.g., 1.384); an elaborate fable of supercessionist theology; a repeated concern to euhemerize Greek myths as corrupted versions of true bible stories (1.671, 2.75, 2.91, 2.288, 2.419, 2.621); and digressive catalogues of distant lands with their monstrous peoples (2.487-552)."
https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bits ... sequence=1

"The tone of the Recuyell is set in the first book that presents an almost totally euhemerized version of the struggles between the generations of the pagan gods, especially Jupiter and Saturn. This version explains away almost all supernatural events (except rather minor ones of magic and an occasional monster) by means of moralized allegories that destroy whatever meaning originally inhered in the myths. [5] Thus, Pluto founded a city in Sicily called Helle, and Pegasus was really a very swift ship, only called a flying horse (Recuyell I. 86, 196)."
http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/Troy/BbV ... axton.html

This article notes the following:

Euhemerism is an ancient practice, not a discovery of the 15th century. Allen traces the roots of this point of view to Euhemerus of Messina, in the 4th century BCE. Allen also points out that the Christian apologists “first described the rather scurvy moral lives and ignoble manners of Greek divinities.” The implication was that such behavior was human, not divine (53).

All you have done with the above is cite articles by people using (or misusing..) euhemerism. This approach in these articles would be better labelled 'reverse euhemerism'. Something that Carrier should have considered using and thus avoiding criticism of his usage of the concept of euhemerism.

According to Roubekas, Mark Winiarczyk "is the most significant contemporary scholar working on Euhemerus and his theory".

Winiarczyk' book is on google book view...

The ‘Sacred History’ of Euhemerus of Messene
Marek Winiarczyk


VIII. Euhemerism in the ancient world.

1. Pagan literature
A. Euhemerus and Euhemerism

The author of the ....(greek words for Sacred History c.300 BCE) wanted to show that the Olympian gods were deified people. That is why Euhemerism is sensu stricto the reduction of the Olympian gods to the role of deified humans. It is not proper to call Euhemerism the apotheosis of people who had achieved things for humanity, as this concept had existed before Euhemerus.
--
B. Euhemerism and the ruler cult

It seems that the common source of both Euhemerism and the ruler cult was euergetism. Already in the epic poetry of Homer we come across the conviction that one could call a god someone who performed something of benefit to an individual, a group of people or an entire society.....

Underlying this view is the conviction that one of the most important features of a deity is doing things of benefit to people. By becoming a benefactor a person likens himself to a deity. At the start of the Hellenistic period benefaction was primarily performed by kings and euergetism was considered an attribute of the Hellenistic monarch.

Note that "the reduction of the Olympian gods to the role of deified humans" does not result in celestial gods coming down and doing a walk-about on earth. Euhemerus is dealing with the origin of a category of gods. That origin, for a specific category of gods, was earthly not heavenly/celestial. The "reduction" relates to origin not movement or transferring between one sphere or another.

I really don't get your attempt to 'save' Carrier on his misuse of euhemerism. Misuse is one thing - it's quite another to apply this misuse in support of a very controversial mythicist theory about the Pauline celestial Jesus figure coming down to earth as the gospel Jesus figure. All Carrier can achieve here is to bring the whole ahistoricist/mythicist debate into disrepute. Doherty must be shaking his head....The gospels, says Doherty, "would not ever have been written on such a basis,"

Earl Doherty on FRDB

(2) You have little or no knowledge of my case if you think that I am saying that the Gospels, or Mark, are entirely based on historicizing the Pauline Christ. In fact, the Gospels would not ever have been written on such a basis, for in large part they are dependent not on Paul or any celestial Christ but on an historical "kingdom of God" preaching movement of the first century centered in Galilee and represented in the Q document.

Nickolas Roubekas: Which Euhemerisk Will You Use?

3. Also Marek Winiarczyk, Euhemeros von Messene: Leben, Werk und Nachwirkung (Munich: Saur, 2002); Die Hellenistischen Utopien (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011) 177-180. Winiarczyk is the most significant contemporary scholar working on Euhemerus and his theory. However, his work is not exhaustive. For example, see the reviews by Roland Baumgartner, Review of M. Winiarczyk, Euhemeros von Messene: Leben, Werk und Nachwirkung, Gn 76/3 (2004): 237–240 and by Benjamin Garstad, Review of M. Winiarczyk, Euhemeros von Messene: Leben, Werk und Nachwirkung, Classical Review 53/2 (2003): 309–311.

[junego]

I snipped the remarks I have previousy responded to.

In previous posts I have quoted from articles by Nickolas Roubekas. So, once again, let me remind you of what this scholar says about euhemerism:

WHICH EUHEMERISM WILL YOU USE?

NICKOLAS P. ROUBEKAS*

This paper deals with euhemerism as a theory that has been (mis-) treated in various ways by both ancient and modern writers. This theory, formulated by Euhemerus of Messene (late fourth century B.C.E.), maintained that Zeus and the other Olympian gods were but mere kings that were deified due to their good deeds.

<snip>

When we deal with ancient texts that promote such interesting and important ideas about religion we must be very cautious, since it is not always easy to distinguish between what was said or written and that which is said to have been said or written, to paraphrase Michel-Rolph Trouillot whose words also opened this paper. In this way one will manage to discern between euhemerism, as the Messenean writer formulated it, and the various euhemerisms that emerged from certain interpretations, the vast majority of which have failed both to read and understand the surviving fragments, or have purposely imposed their own agenda on them for their own interpretative reasons.

https://www.academia.edu/5792859/Which_ ... e_of_Jesus

I have slogged through this article at least half a dozen times now to try to understand the author's arguments. This is a fairly technical article in that a certain amount of background reading/knowledge (that I haven't completely acquired) would be necessary to grasp all the nuances. With that caveat here's my understanding.

The author in this article seems to be saying that the complete understanding/application of every nuance of Euhemerus' original theory is not used to define euhemerism in modern usage and often wasn't used/understood in the Classic era, in Greco/Roman times, through the medieval period, through the Reformation and into the present. He never does give an example of anyone who did use it "correctly", but that may be because he limited his examples to showing that Celsus and Origen (in Contra Celsus) were not using euhemeristic arguments in their Christian vs. pagan debate (as was the case argued by later scholars). Roubekas argues that Celsus/Origen/later Christian scholars a) don't claim to be using Euhemerus' theory and b) that they don't apply all of Euhemerus' theory in their treatises (in part because they didn't use/mention the areas of the original theory that said only Olympic gods were originally living deified kings-not heroes-with the dead deified kings being deified by their living descendent and the whole difference between Olympic gods and celestial gods.) [This is a VERY condensed synopsis leaving out a lot of nuance. There's also a tiny bit of tongue-in-cheek for the pedantry of scholars]

He doesn't directly propose any solution to this issue, he does seem to confirm that modern use/definition is different than Euhemerus' original complete theory.

My conclusion:
1) It's not clear if Roubekas only wants Euhemerism to mean the complete, whole, every i dotted theory of Euhemerus while acknowledging that the definition of modern euhemerism is not the "every i dotted" version or if he's only complaining about those scholars who claim the modern definition is Euhemerus' complete theory.

33 Although Gamble (‘Euhemerism and Christology in Origen: “Contra Celsum” III 22–43,’ 14–15) explicitly differentiates between Euhemerus and ‘euhemerism’ based on the various interpretations his theory received by the Doxographic tradition, the Sceptical-Academic circles, the Stoics, and the early Christian apologists, he nevertheless acknowledges these different interpretations, exploitations, and presentations of Euhemerus’ theory as ‘euhemerism’. However, he fails to distinguish another intellectual group, that of modern scholars who continue presenting those branches of euhemerism as Euhemerism (with a capital ‘E’). In my view, these versions of the theory constitute distortions of euhemerism that are often identified as Euhemerus’ theory and not as they really are, i.e. quasi-euhemeristic or distortions of the original theory. Such an approach has led the study of euhemerism to include every possible theory that claims that religion is based on the deification of kings. In the same sense, and if we are to follow this practice, Sir James Frazer should be deemed a straight-forward euhemerist, which in turn implies that he used and accepted Euhemerus’ theory as a whole. Such assumption cannot be made solely because Frazer spoke about dying gods in his famous The Golden Bough.

2) He may be saying a solution similar to that for Platonism (i.e., division into middle, Christian, neo) or a solution to distinguish between Euhemerism and euhemerism would suffice. (again like Platonism vs. platonism) See above quote, pages 92-93 of article (link in first white box) and:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
"Platonism, rendered as a proper noun, is the philosophy of Plato or the name of other philosophical systems considered closely derived from it. In narrower usage, platonism, rendered as a common noun (with a lower case 'p', subject to sentence case), refers to the philosophy that affirms the existence of abstract objects, which are asserted to "exist" in a "third realm" distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness, and is the opposite of nominalism (with a lower case "n").[1] Lower case "platonists" need not accept any of the doctrines of Plato.[1]"
[my red bolding]

3) Regardless of Roubekas' points the definition of a word is determined primarily by its usage. Modern scholarly usage of euhemerism, euhemerize, etc. seems to have a much broader meaning than Euhemerus' original theory. That's indicated by a perusal of various scholarly books, articles and comments. Whether or not there is a change of definition/usage in the future is TBD. We don't know if this is a tempest in a teacup or in the teapot, the scholars will have to decide.

4) In the meantime some (many? most?) scholars today, including Carrier, seem to regard euhemerizing as meaning to place a mythological entity or action into a historical setting. So I still don't see where Carrier is substantially misusing this idea in OHJ.

[maryhelena]

I snipped the remarks I have previousy responded to.

In previous posts I have quoted from articles by Nickolas Roubekas. So, once again, let me remind you of what this scholar says about euhemerism:

WHICH EUHEMERISM WILL YOU USE?

NICKOLAS P. ROUBEKAS*

This paper deals with euhemerism as a theory that has been (mis-) treated in various ways by both ancient and modern writers. This theory, formulated by Euhemerus of Messene (late fourth century B.C.E.), maintained that Zeus and the other Olympian gods were but mere kings that were deified due to their good deeds.

<snip>

When we deal with ancient texts that promote such interesting and important ideas about religion we must be very cautious, since it is not always easy to distinguish between what was said or written and that which is said to have been said or written, to paraphrase Michel-Rolph Trouillot whose words also opened this paper. In this way one will manage to discern between euhemerism, as the Messenean writer formulated it, and the various euhemerisms that emerged from certain interpretations, the vast majority of which have failed both to read and understand the surviving fragments, or have purposely imposed their own agenda on them for their own interpretative reasons.

https://www.academia.edu/5792859/Which_ ... e_of_Jesus

I have slogged through this article at least half a dozen times now to try to understand the author's arguments. This is a fairly technical article in that a certain amount of background reading/knowledge (that I haven't completely acquired) would be necessary to grasp all the nuances. With that caveat here's my understanding.

The author in this article seems to be saying that the complete understanding/application of every nuance of Euhemerus' original theory is not used to define euhemerism in modern usage and often wasn't used/understood in the Classic era, in Greco/Roman times, through the medieval period, through the Reformation and into the present. He never does give an example of anyone who did use it "correctly", but that may be because he limited his examples to showing that Celsus and Origen (in Contra Celsus) were not using euhemeristic arguments in their Christian vs. pagan debate (as was the case argued by later scholars). Roubekas argues that Celsus/Origen/later Christian scholars a) don't claim to be using Euhemerus' theory and b) that they don't apply all of Euhemerus' theory in their treatises (in part because they didn't use/mention the areas of the original theory that said only Olympic gods were originally living deified kings-not heroes-with the dead deified kings being deified by their living descendent and the whole difference between Olympic gods and celestial gods.) [This is a VERY condensed synopsis leaving out a lot of nuance. There's also a tiny bit of tongue-in-cheek for the pedantry of scholars]

He doesn't directly propose any solution to this issue, he does seem to confirm that modern use/definition is different than Euhemerus' original complete theory.

My conclusion:
1) It's not clear if Roubekas only wants Euhemerism to mean the complete, whole, every i dotted theory of Euhemerus while acknowledging that the definition of modern euhemerism is not the "every i dotted" version or if he's only complaining about those scholars who claim the modern definition is Euhemerus' complete theory.

33 Although Gamble (‘Euhemerism and Christology in Origen: “Contra Celsum” III 22–43,’ 14–15) explicitly differentiates between Euhemerus and ‘euhemerism’ based on the various interpretations his theory received by the Doxographic tradition, the Sceptical-Academic circles, the Stoics, and the early Christian apologists, he nevertheless acknowledges these different interpretations, exploitations, and presentations of Euhemerus’ theory as ‘euhemerism’. However, he fails to distinguish another intellectual group, that of modern scholars who continue presenting those branches of euhemerism as Euhemerism (with a capital ‘E’). In my view, these versions of the theory constitute distortions of euhemerism that are often identified as Euhemerus’ theory and not as they really are, i.e. quasi-euhemeristic or distortions of the original theory. Such an approach has led the study of euhemerism to include every possible theory that claims that religion is based on the deification of kings. In the same sense, and if we are to follow this practice, Sir James Frazer should be deemed a straight-forward euhemerist, which in turn implies that he used and accepted Euhemerus’ theory as a whole. Such assumption cannot be made solely because Frazer spoke about dying gods in his famous The Golden Bough.

2) He may be saying a solution similar to that for Platonism (i.e., division into middle, Christian, neo) or a solution to distinguish between Euhemerism and euhemerism would suffice. (again like Platonism vs. platonism) See above quote, pages 92-93 of article (link in first white box) and:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
"Platonism, rendered as a proper noun, is the philosophy of Plato or the name of other philosophical systems considered closely derived from it. In narrower usage, platonism, rendered as a common noun (with a lower case 'p', subject to sentence case), refers to the philosophy that affirms the existence of abstract objects, which are asserted to "exist" in a "third realm" distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness, and is the opposite of nominalism (with a lower case "n").[1] Lower case "platonists" need not accept any of the doctrines of Plato.[1]"
[my red bolding]

3) Regardless of Roubekas' points the definition of a word is determined primarily by its usage. Modern scholarly usage of euhemerism, euhemerize, etc. seems to have a much broader meaning than Euhemerus' original theory. That's indicated by a perusal of various scholarly books, articles and comments. Whether or not there is a change of definition/usage in the future is TBD. We don't know if this is a tempest in a teacup or in the teapot, the scholars will have to decide.

4) In the meantime some (many? most?) scholars today, including Carrier, seem to regard euhemerizing as meaning to place a mythological entity or action into a historical setting. So I still don't see where Carrier is substantially misusing this idea in OHJ.

So, bottom line in all this, Carrier' use of euhemerism would not get past a review by an Euhemerus scholar. That Carrier, and others, have (mis)used euhemerism does not take away, or side-line, the theory that Euhemerus set out. Development of a theory is one thing - it's another thing altogether to turn a theory on it's head and continue to hang onto a descriptive name that indicates the very opposite of what one is now proposing. That, surely, would be shoddy scholarship.

[MrMacSon]

4) In the meantime some (many? most?) scholars today, including Carrier, seem to regard euhemerizing as meaning *to place a mythological entity or action into a historical setting*. So I still don't see where Carrier is substantially misusing this idea in OHJ.

Seems to be the case.

[junego]

In previous posts I have quoted from articles by Nickolas Roubekas. So, once again, let me remind you of what this scholar says about euhemerism:

WHICH EUHEMERISM WILL YOU USE?

NICKOLAS P. ROUBEKAS*

This paper deals with euhemerism as a theory that has been (mis-) treated in various ways by both ancient and modern writers. This theory, formulated by Euhemerus of Messene (late fourth century B.C.E.), maintained that Zeus and the other Olympian gods were but mere kings that were deified due to their good deeds.

<snip>

When we deal with ancient texts that promote such interesting and important ideas about religion we must be very cautious, since it is not always easy to distinguish between what was said or written and that which is said to have been said or written, to paraphrase Michel-Rolph Trouillot whose words also opened this paper. In this way one will manage to discern between euhemerism, as the Messenean writer formulated it, and the various euhemerisms that emerged from certain interpretations, the vast majority of which have failed both to read and understand the surviving fragments, or have purposely imposed their own agenda on them for their own interpretative reasons.

https://www.academia.edu/5792859/Which_ ... e_of_Jesus

I have slogged through this article at least half a dozen times now to try to understand the author's arguments. This is a fairly technical article in that a certain amount of background reading/knowledge (that I haven't completely acquired) would be necessary to grasp all the nuances. With that caveat here's my understanding.

The author in this article seems to be saying that the complete understanding/application of every nuance of Euhemerus' original theory is not used to define euhemerism in modern usage and often wasn't used/understood in the Classic era, in Greco/Roman times, through the medieval period, through the Reformation and into the present. He never does give an example of anyone who did use it "correctly", but that may be because he limited his examples to showing that Celsus and Origen (in Contra Celsus) were not using euhemeristic arguments in their Christian vs. pagan debate (as was the case argued by later scholars). Roubekas argues that Celsus/Origen/later Christian scholars a) don't claim to be using Euhemerus' theory and b) that they don't apply all of Euhemerus' theory in their treatises (in part because they didn't use/mention the areas of the original theory that said only Olympic gods were originally living deified kings-not heroes-with the dead deified kings being deified by their living descendent and the whole difference between Olympic gods and celestial gods.) [This is a VERY condensed synopsis leaving out a lot of nuance. There's also a tiny bit of tongue-in-cheek for the pedantry of scholars]

He doesn't directly propose any solution to this issue, he does seem to confirm that modern use/definition is different than Euhemerus' original complete theory.

My conclusion:
1) It's not clear if Roubekas only wants Euhemerism to mean the complete, whole, every i dotted theory of Euhemerus while acknowledging that the definition of modern euhemerism is not the "every i dotted" version or if he's only complaining about those scholars who claim the modern definition is Euhemerus' complete theory.

33 Although Gamble (‘Euhemerism and Christology in Origen: “Contra Celsum” III 22–43,’ 14–15) explicitly differentiates between Euhemerus and ‘euhemerism’ based on the various interpretations his theory received by the Doxographic tradition, the Sceptical-Academic circles, the Stoics, and the early Christian apologists, he nevertheless acknowledges these different interpretations, exploitations, and presentations of Euhemerus’ theory as ‘euhemerism’. However, he fails to distinguish another intellectual group, that of modern scholars who continue presenting those branches of euhemerism as Euhemerism (with a capital ‘E’). In my view, these versions of the theory constitute distortions of euhemerism that are often identified as Euhemerus’ theory and not as they really are, i.e. quasi-euhemeristic or distortions of the original theory. Such an approach has led the study of euhemerism to include every possible theory that claims that religion is based on the deification of kings. In the same sense, and if we are to follow this practice, Sir James Frazer should be deemed a straight-forward euhemerist, which in turn implies that he used and accepted Euhemerus’ theory as a whole. Such assumption cannot be made solely because Frazer spoke about dying gods in his famous The Golden Bough.

2) He may be saying a solution similar to that for Platonism (i.e., division into middle, Christian, neo) or a solution to distinguish between Euhemerism and euhemerism would suffice. (again like Platonism vs. platonism) See above quote, pages 92-93 of article (link in first white box) and:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
"Platonism, rendered as a proper noun, is the philosophy of Plato or the name of other philosophical systems considered closely derived from it. In narrower usage, platonism, rendered as a common noun (with a lower case 'p', subject to sentence case), refers to the philosophy that affirms the existence of abstract objects, which are asserted to "exist" in a "third realm" distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness, and is the opposite of nominalism (with a lower case "n").[1] Lower case "platonists" need not accept any of the doctrines of Plato.[1]"
[my red bolding]

3) Regardless of Roubekas' points the definition of a word is determined primarily by its usage. Modern scholarly usage of euhemerism, euhemerize, etc. seems to have a much broader meaning than Euhemerus' original theory. That's indicated by a perusal of various scholarly books, articles and comments. Whether or not there is a change of definition/usage in the future is TBD. We don't know if this is a tempest in a teacup or in the teapot, the scholars will have to decide.

4) In the meantime some (many? most?) scholars today, including Carrier, seem to regard euhemerizing as meaning to place a mythological entity or action into a historical setting. So I still don't see where Carrier is substantially misusing this idea in OHJ.

So, bottom line in all this, Carrier' use of euhemerism would not get past a review by an Euhemerus scholar.

If Roubekas was that scholar, probably not; but Roubekas may just be a purist. Other Euhemerus scholars may be satisfied that Carrier used the "euhemerism" spelling instead of "Euhemerism" to differentiate between modern usage and meaning the original theory. We don't know whether Roubekas is a lone voice kvetching or part of a tidal wave.

That Carrier, and others, have (mis)used euhemerism does not take away, or side-line, the theory that Euhemerus set out.

I think that depends on context. If a scholar means to use the words with their (apparent) modern definitions, then Euhemerus' complete original theory is probably moot and no "misuse" is intended or committed. According to Roubekas pretty much no one has ever interpreted euhemerism as including all the elements of Euhemerus' theory. I'm not sure that the words/concepts were ever intended to do more than be shorthand for a general idea/proposal that some or all deities were actually once historical, mortal men who were later deified.

I gave you the example of platonism above for a word/concept that changed over time and has multiple meanings today. Other people have had "ism" slapped on the end of their names to denote theories that they developed, the meanings of which changed over time.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
While the term Darwinism had been used previously to refer to the work of Erasmus Darwin in the late 18th century, the term as understood today was introduced when Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species was reviewed by Thomas Henry Huxley in the April 1860 issue of the Westminster Review.[12]
................
Darwinism" soon came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches, summed in the 1864 phrase "survival of the fittest" by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, later became emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer's own understanding of evolution (as expressed in 1857) was more similar to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated the publication of Darwin's theory in 1859. What is now called "Social Darwinism" was, in its day, synonymous with "Darwinism"...
.................
However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories, sometimes called "Neo-Darwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
There is no single definitive Marxist theory; Marxist analysis has been applied to diverse subjects and has been misconceived and modified during the course of its development, resulting in numerous and sometimes contradictory theories that fall under the rubric of Marxism or Marxian analysis.[2]

Roubekas does have some room to complain, I think. None of the definitions of Euhemerism/euhemerism I've found give a detailed exposition of Euhemerus' original theory or explain about changing usage over time. All seem to just give the modern definition and maybe its use by early Christian apologists.

Development of a theory is one thing - it's another thing altogether to turn a theory on it's head and continue to hang onto a descriptive name that indicates the very opposite of what one is now proposing. That, surely, would be shoddy scholarship.

ARGH!!!! My notebook is freezing up & losing what I type. Will finish this later after a reboot.

[maryhelena]

Roubekas does have some room to complain, I think. None of the definitions of Euhemerism/euhemerism I've found give a detailed exposition of Euhemerus' original theory or explain about changing usage over time. All seem to just give the modern definition and maybe its use by early Christian apologists.

And that's it is it not. If one is going to use a term contrary to its original meaning then a detailed explanation of how one is using it should be clearly stated. Especially so when one is using it to support ones controversial mythicist theory....

(On that point did not Neil Godfrey, earlier on in this thread say that he was going to write to Carrier for an explanation of how Carrier is using the term....)

Bottom line - Carrier should not expect a free pass on his (mis)use of euhemerism.

[Clive]

Isn't it worse than this? As well as attempting to explain how gods become humans and humans become gods, what of gods that begat humans - nephilim - and half humans half gods - Jesus Christ, (sorry fully god fully man) and Chimera?

Is there a term to cover all the permutations?

[Clive]

http://www.harekrsna.de/artikel/burak-k ... uraq-5.jpg

[Bertie]

It was not history as we recognize it. It was a sort of rhetorical history written in theology and mythology to these people who compiled the pieces. Its why they did not care about the contradictions, they were not important to them as they did not analyze these as we do.

Although I tend to agree with the gist of your assertions in this thread regarding the relevance of the Hellenistic education system (including rhetoric) in explaining many things about early Christian documents, and I mean to gain some more knowledge for myself in this area, last having studied it when I was learning ancient Greek years ago, I disagree with the contention that mythicists or skeptics generally are horribly ignorant of the subject. Mythicists have for some time been deploying arguments based on their understanding of Hellenistic education; Carrier's citing McDonald's Mark—Homer theory is an example of this, as that theory is based both on the centrality of Homer in education and that students (it is said) were taught to imitate and rewrite Homer. Other examples could be given (and I'm somewhat skeptical on a lot of them), but the point is that Hellenistic education is not an area of research that mythicists have failed to engage at all.