GakuseiDon wrote:One thing I've seen pop up is the idea that the Gospels are "euhemerized" stories about Jesus, as part of a trend of taking celestial beings and placing them in history. Richard Carrier makes this comment in this Youtube video, around 51 mins in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
Dr Robert M Price also makes a similar point:
http://deconversionmovement.tumblr.com/ ... t-position
- "I am of the opinion that the varying dates are the residue of various attempts to anchor an originally mythic or legendary Jesus in more or less recent history. It would represent the ancient tendency toward euhemerism. In like manner, Herodotus had tried to calculate the dates of a hypothetically historical Hercules, while Plutarch sought to pin Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt."
But as I understand it, "euhemerization" is the idea that the gods were originally mortal beings -- famous kings and heroes -- who were later thought to be gods. There are no miracles, no supernatural aspects to these euhemerized beings. So the Gospels don't appear to fit under the category of "euhemerized" stories about a god, at least as I understand the term. (That's not to say they don't fit under some other kind of category, like fiction).
Does anyone know anything that suggests the Gospels could fall under the category of "euhemerized" stories?
This came up in a discussion on Mark Goodacre's blog.....
Here are some points I made:
---------------------------------------
Wikipedia: Euhemerus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus
Euhemerus has become known chiefly for a rationalizing method of interpretation, known as "Euhemerism", which treats mythological accounts as a reflection of historical events, or mythological characters as historical personages but which were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology.[14] Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[15] Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology through history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus.[16][17] However, Euhemerus is credited as having developed the theory in application to all myths, considering mythology to be "history in disguise".
-------------------
I don’t read anything in that account that even faintly hints at the possibility that euhermerism could be called upon to support the theory, of some mythicists, that the Pauline cosmic type JC was historicized as the gospel JC. Nothing. Euhermerism works from the perspective that historical events or historical personages were reshaped, exaggerated or altered in the process of becoming mythologized. “History in disguise”.
It makes absolutely no sense to attempt to turn euhermerism around so as to make it support the reverse of what it is upholding. The theory of some mythicists that the Pauline cosmic JC got historicized into the gospel JC is not euhermerism’s ‘History in disguise” - it is mythology in drag.
Euhermerism can be used to support a historical JC figure that got euhermerised into a celestial JC figure. Mythicists seeking to reverse this concept to support a historicizing of a myth cannot. The fundamental core of the concept of euhermerism is that history is relevant. For the specific mythicist idea in question on this blog - history is irrelevant.
----------------
Lets use some logic here. Euhermerism relates to historical events or figures being mythologized. If you want to reverse this i.e. to turn mythological figures into human form, you have, in actuality, not only demoted the ‘gods’ but emasculated them. That, I’m pretty sure, is not what the proposition, by some mythicists, is seeking to do with their Pauline cosmic JC becoming the gospel JC. It seems, to me, that such mythicists want their cake and they want to eat it too! Something has to give in this Euhermerism process. The historical figures died; the historical events past - the mythology lived on. Now, with reverse Euhermerisim it is the ‘gods’ that died in their cosmic setting and the human de-mythologized figure lived - i.e. no more gods. (and the human dies anyway.......)
---------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------
What reverse Euhermerism would do for the proposition, of some mythicists, that a Pauline cosmic Christ figure became the gospel JC figure, is show it up for the irrational nonsense it is.
===========================
My comments taken from Mark Goodacre's blog:
Did Jesus Exist? with Richard Carrier and me on Unbelievable?
http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ ... rrier.html
http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ ... mentPage=2
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats