Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

[junego]

Well, I think I've found answers to my own questions about Carrier's use of the terms related to and concept of euhemerization. My main questions about the modern definition/usage was whether or not euhemerizing entailed

1) It should be a purposeful, conscious application of or belief in Euhemerus' theory by an author;
2) it should be encompassed within a biography or history or other "true" story;
3) it should only have completely mundane content;
4) it should not be applied to a gradual process of humanizing a deity.

After some admittedly cursory reading I've still been able to answer the above to my current satisfaction:
1) No, the concepts/terms are used whether or not the author or their intent is known.
2) No, it's also used in describing folktales, poems, legends, etc.
3) No, supernatural, magical and mythical content is still described with these concepts.
4) Yes, it can be used wrt gradual, unconscious processes.

I found one instance of use in a scholarly article that answered all my questions in one place (although I've found isolated examples in several places). This is from a translation of an Egyptian folktale that is introduced as follows.

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc5/anubis.htm

"The prose redaction of this tale comes from the late Nineteenth Dynasty, circa 1190 BCE! It comes from a stage in which the two deities, Anubis and Bata, are heavily de-mythologized and euhemerized into a folkloric story, and yet are obviously based on older, fully-fledged deities. Echoes of the Osiris story can be seen in it clearly as well. The story-type here is interesting, with many parallels in later literatures in terms of the "serial shapeshifting" and "conception by swallowing" motifs; some also believe that this story had an influence on the Potiphar's wife incident in the Joseph story at the end of Genesis; certain other symbols are connected with other Ecclesia figures, e.g. the Valley of the Pine, where Bata goes after he has emasculated himself, and the pinecones connected to Dionysus and Attis." [My emphasis]


Carrier does not appear to be using these terms/concepts in any way that is wildly different than I've seen in other scholarly writing. Someone may not agree with his hypothesis that euhemerization happened, but AFAICT he's not using the idea incorrectly.

Although I disagree with some of the conclusions of other posters, it's been an interesting discussion; I've learned something new.

[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

[junego]

And Crook is wrong/confused about "that Jesus was a historical figure who was euhemerized, that's turned into a god later." He's describing apotheosis. If that's what he understood euhemerization to mean at the time of the debate, then this criticism of Carrier's theory is based on incorrect knowledge and can be set aside for now.

From Wiki: "Euhemerus' views were rooted in the deification of men, usually kings, into gods through apotheosis."

"Apotheosis" is what happened when, for example, the Roman emperors were deified after death (or sometimes while they were still living.)

"Euhemerism" is the idea that the myths of the gods were exaggerated accounts of (merely) mortal men. Then through apotheosis, the men became to be considered gods.

1/ Carrier's claim is that the Gospel of Mark is an example of "euhemerization": that a mythical god is placed in time and space as a mortal man. The Gospel of Mark is the end point in the process (as far as I can determine from Carrier's description.)

2/ IIUC Crook perspective is that the Gospel of Mark is an example of "euhemerization": that the Gospel of Mark contains mythical and exaggerated accounts of a (merely) mortal man. The Gospel of Mark is the starting point in the process.

I do think that Crook's usage is closer to the mark. gMark contains miracles, God talking, Satan and demons, and ends with a resurrection into heaven. That sounds more like exaggerated accounts of a merely mortal man, rather than myths decoded into natural events about a merely mortal man.

I'm still planning on laying out Carrier's position by quoting him from his OHJ, so for now the above represents what I've understood so far. I hope that I haven't misrepresented Carrier or Crook.

(Editted to add) Rereading the snippet you quoted above, I do agree with you: Crook misspoke. Gods were euhemerized into mortal men; mortal men were not 'euhemerized' into gods (which, as you rightly point out, is apotheosis.) But I took his understanding from the context of the fuller quote:

• "The second example [of problems with Carrier's theories] is with Euhemerism, which you've heard referred to already [by Richard Carrier.] Euhemerism is the claim that actually -- Euhemerus first said -- that all religions, all the gods, were originally just people, who were so revered and adored, that their followers deified them. Oddly I'm not sure I understand how Richard uses Euhemerism against Christianity, or against this position, because that's actually the point I'm making, that Jesus was a historical figure who was euhemerized, that's turned into a god later."

So I'm happy to give Crook the benefit of the doubt there (the fact that I am 'on his side' has nothing to do with it... honestly! )

The fuller quote above doesn't change the mistake, Crook still seems to think that euhemerization means real humans ARE made into gods. What he might have been trying to say is that GMark is NOT euhemerization but is apotheosis. Problem is that's not an example of a problem with Carrier's theory, it's a question of interpretation of evidence. So his whole point here still resolves to nothing.

I've declared myself agnostic, but I have some sympathy for the mythic hypothesis just because it's the underdog in academia. Also because the evidence can be interpretted to support the idea, imho.

[MrMacSon]

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

[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

It is spurious to claim there is no historical value.

[MrMacSon]

They're historical documents, but how much real history they contain is largely unexplained - they are unsupported by other information, and are not contemporaneous.

[outhouse]

They're historical documents, but how much real history they contain is largely unexplained - they are unsupported by other information, and are not contemporaneous.

Agreed for the most part,

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.

While you claim what you do, Paul's community were contemporaries who did write. Yet they only reflects Christianity in the Diaspora as it grew right after his death.

It also fails to realize books like Gmark were compilations of contemporaneous sources and some of its pieces did come from this early period. The Passion was probably already written and in a sort of semi circulation in some circles. Remember, these pieces had to become popular before they were collected or even written. They were not written to gain popularity, but preserve it, preserve traditions important in certain communities.

[junego]

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

[maryhelena]

I found one instance of use in a scholarly article that answered all my questions in one place (although I've found isolated examples in several places). This is from a translation of an Egyptian folktale that is introduced as follows.

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc5/anubis.htm

"The prose redaction of this tale comes from the late Nineteenth Dynasty, circa 1190 BCE! It comes from a stage in which the two deities, Anubis and Bata, are heavily de-mythologized and euhemerized into a folkloric story, and yet are obviously based on older, fully-fledged deities. Echoes of the Osiris story can be seen in it clearly as well. The story-type here is interesting, with many parallels in later literatures in terms of the "serial shapeshifting" and "conception by swallowing" motifs; some also believe that this story had an influence on the Potiphar's wife incident in the Joseph story at the end of Genesis; certain other symbols are connected with other Ecclesia figures, e.g. the Valley of the Pine, where Bata goes after he has emasculated himself, and the pinecones connected to Dionysus and Attis." [My emphasis]

I noticed that the introduction to the article you referenced made no attempt to define what the term used, 'euhemerized', related to. The writer of this introduction could just as easily have written the word *historicized*. Euhemerism and historicization are not synonymous concepts. It is a failure to note this important distinction that this thread, re Carrier' use of euhemerism to support his mythicist theory, has been about.

(I also noted that the translator of the text you referenced was a translator of Egyptian texts: Miriam Lichtheim (3 May 1914, Istanbul – 27 March 2004, Jerusalem) was an Israeli translator of ancient Egyptian texts whose translations are still widely used.)

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

[junego]

I found one instance of use in a scholarly article that answered all my questions in one place (although I've found isolated examples in several places). This is from a translation of an Egyptian folktale that is introduced as follows.

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc5/anubis.htm

"The prose redaction of this tale comes from the late Nineteenth Dynasty, circa 1190 BCE! It comes from a stage in which the two deities, Anubis and Bata, are heavily de-mythologized and euhemerized into a folkloric story, and yet are obviously based on older, fully-fledged deities. Echoes of the Osiris story can be seen in it clearly as well. The story-type here is interesting, with many parallels in later literatures in terms of the "serial shapeshifting" and "conception by swallowing" motifs; some also believe that this story had an influence on the Potiphar's wife incident in the Joseph story at the end of Genesis; certain other symbols are connected with other Ecclesia figures, e.g. the Valley of the Pine, where Bata goes after he has emasculated himself, and the pinecones connected to Dionysus and Attis." [My emphasis]

I noticed that the introduction to the article you referenced made no attempt to define what the term used, 'euhemerized', related to. The writer of this introduction could just as easily have written the word *historicized*. Euhemerism and historicization are not synonymous concepts. It is a failure to note this important distinction that this thread, re Carrier' use of euhemerism to support his mythicist theory, has been about.

The term is used to describe "fully-fledged" deities being "de-mythologized" and put into a fanciful but earthly historical setting (IOW euhemerized). Now that you mention it, I'd say that euhemerization is a synonymous sub-category of historicization. It is just a very particular kind of making something appear historical.

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

"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

"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

(I also noted that the translator of the text you referenced was a translator of Egyptian texts: Miriam Lichtheim (3 May 1914, Istanbul – 27 March 2004, Jerusalem) was an Israeli translator of ancient Egyptian texts whose translations are still widely used.)

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:

So this post doesn't get 9 yards long, I'll respond to the Roubekas article separately.

[snip]