Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

[junego]

Carrier writes (my underlining and bolding below):

Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:

"[The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases.

"Note the underlining above: the stories of the gods were really about men who were later deified. The mythological stories are what we are left with. God becoming incarnate on earth with angels singing and performing miracles in the Gospels are the stories of the "mythical beings and events" that we are left with. A euhemerized version would be something like Carrier's "minimal historical Jesus."

Once again, GDon, you are, with maryhelena's support, creating misunderstanding where there need not be misunderstanding. It is about Euhemerus asserting that the gods originated as heroes, not that they in actuality did originate as heroes. It was Euhemerus's belief that mythical gods, who were entirely mythical (like Zeus), were actually heroes who had been deified. "Euhemerization" is the process of historicizing, as Euhemerus did, mythical beings: this would necessarily entail the creation of fictional accounts.

Carrier is applying the definition correctly. The question is is he correct? I decided, based on this discussion, that he is not. I believe that Mark created a fictional allegory based on the mythical being Jesus Christ, preached by Paul and others, with no desire to historicize Jesus in the way that Euhemeros sought to historicize Zeus. I do not believe that Mark wanted his Gospel read as a history of accounts that actually occurred, but as an allegorical rewriting of OT motifs.

I tentatively lean toward your characterization of gMark as an allegory but lean away from your assertion that this means he didn't euhemerize Jesus because:
1) I'm coming to the conclusion (again tentatively) that euhemerization (at least as applied by many, if not most, modern academics) is defined by the outcome more than the intent.

2) Primarily the categorization would depend on outcome because in almost all cases we don't know what the authorial intent was! We can speculate about what Mark intended, but what he did was to create a historical story/context for a mythic/celestial entity (especially wrt what Matthew, Luke, John, et al interpreted his story to mean). Maybe that would mean that it was Matthew (or whoever) who 'officially' euhemerized Jesus, but that seems to get too nitpicky to me. The point is that Jesus was euhemerized in the literature, which greatly impacted the course of history (if the non-corporeal Christ hypothesis is correct).

3) I haven't found any clear academic usage or definition of euhemerization which describes whether or not the term is applied when the author's intent is known to be purely fictional. Since almost all academic discussions I've read are dealing with unknown authors or where their intent is ambiguous or unknown, the opportunity to clarify hasn't come my way. In fact authorial intent is not even mentioned much of the time, but the term 'euhemerization' is still applied to the stories if they seem to be historicizing a mythical entity no matter what format is used...folktales, poems, romances, histories, etc.

I'll run through more of my thinking and evidence in response to GDon.

BTW, I agree with your response to GDon. (Not that you need my approval or anything.)

[GakuseiDon]

If we are going to continue this conversation, it would be good to provide:
(a) definition/s of "euhemerism" and "euhemerize"
(b) actual examples from ancient sources.

For a definition, I'm happy with Carrier's that I gave on the last page. Carrier wrote:

• Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  "[The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases.

There is also the Wiki page on Euhemerus, which states (my underlining): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

• The term euhemerism is derived from his name, and is the philosophy attributed to Euhemerus which holds that many mythological tales can be attributed to historical persons and events, the accounts of which have become altered and exaggerated over time... 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.

Here is a possible example of "euhemerism" by Herodotus, who wrote in the 5th Century BCE, the century before Euhemerus: http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Gree ... dtbk2.html

• [4] Then I went to Thasos, too, where I found a temple of Heracles built by the Phoenicians, who made a settlement there when they voyaged in search of Europe; now they did so as much as five generations before the birth of Heracles the son of Amphitryon in Hellas.
  [5] Therefore, what I have discovered by inquiry plainly shows that Heracles is an ancient god. And furthermore, those Greeks, I think, are most in the right, who have established and practise two worships of Heracles, sacrificing to one Heracles as to an immortal, and calling him the Olympian, but to the other [Heracles the son of Amphitryon] bringing offerings as to a dead hero...
  
  Had Dionysus son of Semele and Pan son of Penelope appeared in Hellas and lived there to old age, like Heracles the son of Amphitryon, it might have been said that they too (like Heracles) were but men, named after the older Pan and Dionysus, the gods of antiquity...

Here is 2nd Century Christian apologist Minicius Felix on the subject that ancient gods were really men, and this was known by earlier pagan writers: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... avius.html

• Why should I refer to those old wives' fables, that men were changed from men into birds and beasts, and from men into trees and flowers?--which things, if they had happened at all, would happen again; and because they cannot happen now, therefore never happened at all. In like manner with respect to the gods too, our ancestors believed carelessly, credulously, with untrained simplicity; While worshipping their kings religiously, desiring to look upon them when dead in outward forms, anxious to preserve their memories in statues, those things became sacred which had been taken up merely as consolations...
  
  Read the writings of the Stoics, or the writings of wise men, you will acknowledge these facts with me. On account of the merits of their virtue or of some gift, Euhemerus asserts that they were esteemed gods; and he enumerates their birthdays, their countries, their places of sepulture, and throughout various provinces points out these circumstances of the Dictaean Jupiter, and of the Delphic Apollo, and of the Pharian Isis, and of the Eleusinian Ceres...
  
  For all the writers of antiquity, both Greek and Roman, have set forth that Saturn, the beginner of this race and multitude, was a man. Nepos knows this, and Cassius in his history; and Thallus and Diodorus speak the same thing. This Saturn then, driven from Crete, by the fear of his raging son, had come to Italy, and, received by the hospitality of Janus, taught those unskilled and rustic men many things,--as, being something of a Greek, and polished,--to print letters for instance, to coin money, to make instruments... Therefore it was certainly a man that fled, certainly a man who was concealed, and the father of a man, and sprung from a man.

The key concept is the belief that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events, whereby kings and conquerors are later deified (i.e. after death.) So "to euhemerize" is to look at the myths and determine from them what really happened in history.

[junego]

No matter what form of euhemerism you use/believe/theorize about, euhemerization (in modern scholarly papers/books that I found) just means that someone has created a FICTIONAL story about a MYTHICAL entity/event that places the MYTHICAL entity/event in a HISTORICAL setting (for which there is no clear/good evidence to accept the setting is true). Euhemerus historicized/euhemerized Zeus, Uranus and Kronos by writing a FALSE history about them. That's why it's called EUHEMERIZATION whenever this happens whether or not the creator of the folk tale/biography/history/allegory/etc. knows or understands or believes anything to do with Euhemerus and/or euhemerism. Apparently euhemerization means to do what Euhemerus did - create a fictional, historical tale about a deity or mythical entity - with little connection to definitions of euhemerism. (There is some variation I found among scholars as to whether this applies to deities only or to any mythical entity.)

Carrier has not turned anything on its head. He is using the standard modern definition of euhemerization. He never addresses euhemerism at all and merely gives a very brief description of what Euhemerus thought. His points about the stories historicizing/euhemerizing Jesus do not depend on which nuance of euhemerism someone subscribes to. Euhemerism and euhemerizarion ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

I'm not eager to jump back into this thread, but it is something that I'd really like to see cleared up. I'm wondering if half the problem isn't that there are no clear definitions of "euhemerism" and "euhemerization".

I think it's a combination of somewhat superficial defs of what are primarily technical academic terms, maybe some fuzziness among scholars about usage, and the usual academic 'disagreement' about exactly how some ideas/terms are used. (For example I really don't think that all scholars in the appropriate fields agree on what, when and who neo-platonists/neo-platonism are/is and so usage in papers may vary some.) But the broad outline of these terms' use can be gleaned from the dictionaries and encyclopedias as long as you aren't trying to analyse them deeply or pick apart someone else's ideas based solely on these superficial definitions. If you want more detailed info you need to go to the academic literature.

Though as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Carrier does endorse the standard definitions found in dictionaries on his blog here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

Carrier writes (my underlining and bolding below):

• Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  "[The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases."

Note the underlining above: the stories of the gods were really about men who were later deified. The mythological stories are what we are left with. God becoming incarnate on earth with angels singing and performing miracles in the Gospels are the stories of the "mythical beings and events" that we are left with. A euhemerized version would be something like Carrier's "minimal historical Jesus."

The above underlined quote is talking about what Euhemerus ASSERTED not about any general academic conclusion or agreement that this is true. There is nothing in this definition that says that a euhemerized version has to be some minimal historical anything, there's nothing in this definition that says what a "euhemerized version" even means. Below are links to actual academic sources that use or discuss these terms in context.

And note the bolding above: modern scholars consider "euhemerism" as the explanation for the origin of the god in the story. That is, the origin of the god Jesus was a man Jesus. The origin of the god Zeus was a man Zeus.

I think you've misread the above or I've misunderstood your point. The bolded part of the quote says modern scholars do NOT accept euhemerism as a sole explanation for any gods origin, but it may still sometimes have some validity. So far in my reading the only times I've found anyone claiming euhemerism as applicable to explain mythic tales was one paper on King Arthur and a vague hypothesis that when the Celts moved into Greece in (whenever) BC after they conquered each area their stories of conquest morphed into tales of Zeus raping or tricking women instead.

There is nothing in the definition of "euhemerize" about creating a "fictional, historical tale about a deity or mythical entity" (though undoubtedly this is what Euhemerus did.) As per the definition that Carrier himself gives and endorses above, it is the "attempt to find [an actual!] historical basis for mythical beings and events", not "make a fictional tale." If you can provide a definition of "euhemerization" which states that it is making a "fictional, historical tale" I'd like to see it. (Apologies if you've done just that earlier in this thread.)

Do you agree definitions of euhemerism ("attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events") and euhemerize ("to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism") that Carrier gives above?

I have semi-covered these things over several posts, but never specifically as these questions. When questions were raised in this thread about whether or not Carrier was using this idea correctly and the dictionary defs didn't answer the questions, I started searching the readily accessible academic literature online. My understanding and opinion have developed as I've read.

Do I agree with these definitions? Yes and no. They are very brief, superficial, and/or somewhat inaccurate or misstated. They are not meant to analyse academic usage. Take the "attempt to find a historical basis..." def of euhemerism. That beginning sentence is poorly stated. Euhemerism is a belief or hypothesis about the historical basis of mythical beings. It implies nothing about what someone might "attempt to find". It might be clearer to say something like "propose there is a historical basis..." I probably wouldn't have noticed the ambiguity until you came up with your "attempt to find [an actual!] historical basis..." misconstrual above. Carrier probably didn't notice the opening for misinterpretation either.

I prefer defs like "1...the theory of Euhemerus that the mythologies of various gods arose out of the deification of dead heroes." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euhemerism . Even this def is inadequate for academic discussions.

Euhemerization is where most of the dictionary definitions seem to really diverge from how the term is actually used in academia (at least in my admittedly non-comprehensive investigation.) "[T]o interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism." doesn't much fit reality. This def seems to imply/require that we know authorial intent wrt whether or not the author knows or cares that they are interpreting mythology and whether or not the author has any knowledge of or opinion about the theory of euhemerism.

I'll go through some quotes/links showing how the idea is used in context in academic books and papers, mostly they don't fit this definition or most of the other defs I've seen. Since the definitions of words are based primarily on usage and this is a technical academic term/concept, it's my opinion that academic usage trumps incomplete, superficial vernacular definitions

The TL;DR version is that essentially all the academic references that I found (and there are dozens of them) almost universally use 'euhemerized' and 'euhemerization' to mean that a mythic entity or event has been inserted into a historical or semi-historical setting that is not based on any real historical facts, data, or investigation. IOW the euhemerized accounts are fictional, whether or not the author(s) knew or intended such a thing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=411&start=130#p23407
Here's post where I posed the questions that I had about how Carrier used euhemerism/euhemerization and the link to where I felt the questions were answered.

1) http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc5/anubis.htm
Here's that link. Quote follows:

"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]

Note that this is an obvious and acknowledged 'fictional' story where there is no way to know authorial intent and probably was created as a process over time with multiple authors. It also contains supernatural and mythical elements in the euhemerized story. It's obvious that there is no hint of an attempt to find out what is historically true.

2) http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/CULint.htm

"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."

At the link you will see that the paper is discussing medieval Welsh Arthurian tales, so the genre is romance epic and poetry, IOW fiction, where this mythical entity has been euhemerized. Supernatural elements are also mentioned in the euhemerized tale. No discussion of authorial intent (that I recall) because the author(s) are unknown. There is no discussion or mention or hint that doing real history was attempted or intended.

3) http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/religionc ... ology.html

"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."

Note the emphasis "as though they were biographical", IOW fictional biographies. Authors are various, unknown, and across many years, but intent is interpreted as a moral lesson, not euhemerism, and no discussion of an intention to find out what 'really' happened. No obvious supernatural content.

4) https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/45/Rives.pdf

"The identification of the writings mentioned by Cicero with those of Plutarch would provide further basis for this assumption, since the Phrygian writings of the Egyptian Herakles would thus serve as the fictive source for the euhemerizing narrative, just as the Panchaean stele did for Euhemerus and the poems of Linus and Thymoites did for Dionysius.40" page 237. "We may perhaps even be able to discern in our references a shift in interpretive fashion, away from the euhemerizing approaches of Dionysius Scytobrachion and the Phrygian tales attributed to Diagoras, and towards the allegorical treatments cited by Cornutus, Plutarch, and Damascius. But what we can certainly discern in these references to Phrygian tales is the appropriation of the mystique of Phrygian antiquity (itself in large part a Greek construct) in order to support particular positions in Greek thought." page 243.

This is a good paper for examples of academic use of 'euhemerization' and also discussion of how the ancients used the idea. The paper is about the phenomenon of "Phrygian tales" being used by ancient writers for centuries for a variety of purposes, including as fictive sources for euhemerizing tales of mythic entities. EDIT: Note that in the first hilite he is discussing somone writing a euhemerizing tale and using a fictive source JUST LIKE EUHEMERUS DID!!! Note in second hilite he is concluding that there may have been a shift from using euhemerization to try to explain their myths to using allegory instead. There was no discussion that the ancients were really trying to figure out what happened historically beyond their speculative euhemerizing. END EDIT

I could add references for pages and pages showing similar usage. I found dozens. None of them really support your or maryhelena's interpretation of what euhemerization means. They tend to strongly support my contention that euhemerization is almost exclusively about writing a mythic entity into a FICTIVE historical or semi-historical setting.

[GakuseiDon]

I'm not eager to jump back into this thread, but it is something that I'd really like to see cleared up. I'm wondering if half the problem isn't that there are no clear definitions of "euhemerism" and "euhemerization".

I think it's a combination of somewhat superficial defs of what are primarily technical academic terms, maybe some fuzziness among scholars about usage, and the usual academic 'disagreement' about exactly how some ideas/terms are used. (For example I really don't think that all scholars in the appropriate fields agree on what, when and who neo-platonists/neo-platonism are/is and so usage in papers may vary some.) But the broad outline of these terms' use can be gleaned from the dictionaries and encyclopedias as long as you aren't trying to analyse them deeply or pick apart someone else's ideas based solely on these superficial definitions. If you want more detailed info you need to go to the academic literature.

Okay, but note I am not using my own definition, but the one that Richard Carrier himself and others have given. If they are not sufficient, if the academic usage is broader, then that's fine. I'd be interested in that broader view actually defined. Whether we agree on the definitions or not is secondary at this stage. But based on academic usage, how would you define "euhemerism" and "to euhemerize"?

Though as I mentioned earlier in this thread, Carrier does endorse the standard definitions found in dictionaries on his blog here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

Carrier writes (my underlining and bolding below):

• Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  "[The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases."

Note the underlining above: the stories of the gods were really about men who were later deified. The mythological stories are what we are left with. God becoming incarnate on earth with angels singing and performing miracles in the Gospels are the stories of the "mythical beings and events" that we are left with. A euhemerized version would be something like Carrier's "minimal historical Jesus."

...
I think you've misread the above or I've misunderstood your point. The bolded part of the quote says modern scholars do NOT accept euhemerism as a sole explanation for any gods origin, but it may still sometimes have some validity.

I fear you have indeed misunderstood my point. It doesn't matter whether modern scholars accept euhemerism as an explanation or not, what matters is what exactly are they accepting or rejecting? Isn't it the sense of that sentence that modern scholars do not accept the apotheosis of actual kings as a sole explanation for any gods' origins? How would you define "euhemerism" based on its usage in that sentence in Carrier's definition?

So far in my reading the only times I've found anyone claiming euhemerism as applicable to explain mythic tales was one paper on King Arthur and a vague hypothesis that when the Celts moved into Greece in (whenever) BC after they conquered each area their stories of conquest morphed into tales of Zeus raping or tricking women instead.

Right, and that is an example of an "attempt to find [an actual] historical basis for mythical beings and events." But I've offered quite a few other examples earlier in this thread whereby ancient writers stated that the gods were actually just men (kings who were later deified), and crediting Euhemerus and other early Greek writers for that view. I repeat this below.

There is nothing in the definition of "euhemerize" about creating a "fictional, historical tale about a deity or mythical entity" (though undoubtedly this is what Euhemerus did.) As per the definition that Carrier himself gives and endorses above, it is the "attempt to find [an actual!] historical basis for mythical beings and events", not "make a fictional tale." If you can provide a definition of "euhemerization" which states that it is making a "fictional, historical tale" I'd like to see it. (Apologies if you've done just that earlier in this thread.)

Do you agree definitions of euhemerism ("attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events") and euhemerize ("to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism") that Carrier gives above?

I have semi-covered these things over several posts, but never specifically as these questions. When questions were raised in this thread about whether or not Carrier was using this idea correctly and the dictionary defs didn't answer the questions, I started searching the readily accessible academic literature online. My understanding and opinion have developed as I've read.

I think the dictionary definitions DO answer the question, and suggest that Carrier is not using the idea correctly. But I take your point below that academic usage might be different to the dictionary usage. The purpose of my OP in this thread in fact was to ask that very question. If there is a better definition, or one that is accepted by academia that is different from the dictionary usage, then I'd like to understand this. I'm very interested in ancient thought, so my view is shaped by what I've read in ancient literature. Modern usage may be different.

Do I agree with these definitions? Yes and no. They are very brief, superficial, and/or somewhat inaccurate or misstated. They are not meant to analyse academic usage. Take the "attempt to find a historical basis..." def of euhemerism. That beginning sentence is poorly stated. Euhemerism is a belief or hypothesis about the historical basis of mythical beings. It implies nothing about what someone might "attempt to find". It might be clearer to say something like "propose there is a historical basis..." I probably wouldn't have noticed the ambiguity until you came up with your "attempt to find [an actual!] historical basis..." misconstrual above. Carrier probably didn't notice the opening for misinterpretation either.

I prefer defs like "1...the theory of Euhemerus that the mythologies of various gods arose out of the deification of dead heroes." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/euhemerism . Even this def is inadequate for academic discussions.

To be clear, Euhemerus wasn't the first to propose this. Earlier Greek writers proposed something similar, as per the reference I gave earlier. And their views were as per the definition you gave: the myths of some gods arose out of deification of popular kings.

So what definition is adequate for academic discussions? That's the key question here, I think.

Euhemerization is where most of the dictionary definitions seem to really diverge from how the term is actually used in academia (at least in my admittedly non-comprehensive investigation.) "[T]o interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism." doesn't much fit reality. This def seems to imply/require that we know authorial intent wrt whether or not the author knows or cares that they are interpreting mythology and whether or not the author has any knowledge of or opinion about the theory of euhemerism.

I'll go through some quotes/links showing how the idea is used in context in academic books and papers, mostly they don't fit this definition or most of the other defs I've seen. Since the definitions of words are based primarily on usage and this is a technical academic term/concept, it's my opinion that academic usage trumps incomplete, superficial vernacular definitions

That's fine, but if we can't find a definition that incorporates academic usage, then it makes it difficult to argue whether anyone is using the term correctly.

The definition that I've seen is "the rational interpretation of myths". From here (my bolding below): http://euhemerism.askdefinebeta.com/

• [Euhemerus] is chiefly known for a rationalizing method of interpretation, known as Euhemerism, that treats mythological accounts as a reflection of actual historical events shaped by retelling and traditional mores. In the skeptic philosophical tradition of Theodorus of Cyrene and the Cyrenaics, Euhemerism forged a new method of interpretation for the contemporary religious beliefs. Though his work is lost, the reputation of Euhemerus was that he believed that much of Greek mythology could be interpreted as natural events subsequently given supernatural characteristics.

Euhemerus is called "an atheist" in later literature, because of that reputation (even though his "Sacred History" was by all accounts a romance story.) It is statements like the above that led me to think that the Gospels -- with their description of a god -- were the myths, and so an 'euhemerist' would likely conclude that the Jesus in the story was just a man who was later deified.

The TL;DR version is that essentially all the academic references that I found (and there are dozens of them) almost universally use 'euhemerized' and 'euhemerization' to mean that a mythic entity or event has been inserted into a historical or semi-historical setting that is not based on any real historical facts, data, or investigation. IOW the euhemerized accounts are fictional, whether or not the author(s) knew or intended such a thing.

"Fictional, whether or not the author(s) knew or intended such a thing"? Do you mean "not true"? If so, then I agree, but it is irrelevant to my point AFAICS. (I'm certainly not arguing that euhemerized accounts accurately depict the past!) Nor do I see the intent of the author as important when it comes to the definition. That someone can use a euhemeristic approach to write fiction doesn't seem relevant to the definition, anymore than the definition of "history" ('the study of past events') is affected by fictional histories. Intent is only important when it comes to how the results are presented.

<snipped>

4) https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/45/Rives.pdf

"The identification of the writings mentioned by Cicero with those of Plutarch would provide further basis for this assumption, since the Phrygian writings of the Egyptian Herakles would thus serve as the fictive source for the euhemerizing narrative, just as the Panchaean stele did for Euhemerus and the poems of Linus and Thymoites did for Dionysius.40" page 237. "We may perhaps even be able to discern in our references a shift in interpretive fashion, away from the euhemerizing approaches of Dionysius Scytobrachion and the Phrygian tales attributed to Diagoras, and towards the allegorical treatments cited by Cornutus, Plutarch, and Damascius. But what we can certainly discern in these references to Phrygian tales is the appropriation of the mystique of Phrygian antiquity (itself in large part a Greek construct) in order to support particular positions in Greek thought." page 243.

Right. And are those stories about gods who were really just men? That's the question. In fact, quoting your reference above (thanks for the link, it was very interesting), it appears so! From your link above:

• The earliest datable reference to Phrygian writings comes
  from Dionysius Scytobrachion, by way of Diodorus Siculus. In
  Book 3 of his Library, Diodorus gives an account of the god
  Dionysus that he claims is told by the Libyans; his source for
  this is Dionysius. The work in question was what Jeffrey Rusten
  has called Dionysius’ Libyan Stories, a euhemerizing romance
  that, among other things, identified the Greek gods as in origin
  the rulers of a Libyan people called the Atlantioi. Their first
  king is Ouranos, who invents agriculture and is after his death
  regarded as a god by his people. His daughter Rhea marries
  Ammon, the king of a neighboring Libyan tribe...

Also:

• Before considering these Phrygian tales of Diagoras, we
  should consider the company in which Tatian places them.
  The earlier of these two writers is Leon, who probably in the
  early Hellenistic period wrote a euhemerizing account of the
  Egyptian gods in the guise of a letter from Alexander the Great
  to his mother. A number of Christian writers from Tatian
  onwards cited this text in their attacks on polytheism, and the
  numerous references show clearly that it was a euhemerizing
  romance or pseudo-history mixing Greek and Egyptian tradi-
  tions and probably focused on Egypt.

Also:

• One of these is the euhemerizing tale that presents myths of
  the gods as stories about ancient kings and heroes. Such very
  clearly was Dionysius Scytobrachion’s “Phrygian poem”; even
  though Dionysius himself may have intended this to be under-
  stood as a fictive device, the Libyan Stories in which he employed
  this device were obviously euhemeristic. As I have argued
  above, the Phrygian tales that Tatian attributes to Diagoras
  were very likely also a euhemerizing account of the gods, set in
  Egypt, perhaps, rather than Libya.

In his use, the author appears to support the idea that euhemerism involves "the gods were really just men" motif.

This is a good paper for examples of academic use of 'euhemerization' and also discussion of how the ancients used the idea. The paper is about the phenomenon of "Phrygian tales" being used by ancient writers for centuries for a variety of purposes, including as fictive sources for euhemerizing tales of mythic entities. EDIT: Note that in the first hilite he is discussing somone writing a euhemerizing tale and using a fictive source JUST LIKE EUHEMERUS DID!!! Note in second hilite he is concluding that there may have been a shift from using euhemerization to try to explain their myths to using allegory instead. There was no discussion that the ancients were really trying to figure out what happened historically beyond their speculative euhemerizing. END EDIT

I definitely disagree. I've been presenting such evidence in this thread. I presented this on the last page of this thread, where I quoted from 2nd Century CE Christian apologist Minucius Felix's "Octavius" thusly:

• In like manner with respect to the gods too, our ancestors believed carelessly, credulously, with untrained simplicity; While worshipping their kings religiously, desiring to look upon them when dead in outward forms, anxious to preserve their memories in statues, those things became sacred which had been taken up merely as consolations...
  
  Read the writings of the Stoics, or the writings of wise men, you will acknowledge these facts with me. On account of the merits of their virtue or of some gift, Euhemerus asserts that they were esteemed gods; and he enumerates their birthdays, their countries, their places of sepulture...
  
  For all the writers of antiquity, both Greek and Roman, have set forth that Saturn, the beginner of this race and multitude, was a man. Nepos knows this, and Cassius in his history; and Thallus and Diodorus speak the same thing. This Saturn then, driven from Crete, by the fear of his raging son, had come to Italy... Therefore it was certainly a man that fled, certainly a man who was concealed, and the father of a man, and sprung from a man.

As an aside, "Octavius" is my favorite piece of ancient writing. The author goes in hard against the Roman gods, and repeats (and refutes) a lot of the weird slanders against the Christians of his day. A fantastic read!

I could add references for pages and pages showing similar usage. I found dozens. None of them really support your or maryhelena's interpretation of what euhemerization means. They tend to strongly support my contention that euhemerization is almost exclusively about writing a mythic entity into a FICTIVE historical or semi-historical setting.

As I've said, the definitions I've presented are not mine, they are Carrier's and others, though the interpretation of those definitions are certainly mine. But I still have not seen a clear definition from you on "euhemerism" and "to euhemerize", based upon your perusal of modern acamedic literature. Without that, I think we will just be arguing in circles.

[cienfuegos]

If we are going to continue this conversation, it would be good to provide:
(a) definition/s of "euhemerism" and "euhemerize"
(b) actual examples from ancient sources.

For a definition, I'm happy with Carrier's that I gave on the last page. Carrier wrote:

• Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  "[The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases.

There is also the Wiki page on Euhemerus, which states (my underlining): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

• The term euhemerism is derived from his name, and is the philosophy attributed to Euhemerus which holds that many mythological tales can be attributed to historical persons and events, the accounts of which have become altered and exaggerated over time... 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.

Oy vey. We have produced definitions of the word over and over again in this thread. You are beating a dead horse with your mangled misreading of the definitions. Just ask yourself: Was Zeus a real person deified? Was Heracles a real person deified? No, I think the evidence shows that they were mythical beings historicized. Euhemerus believed that the mythical gods had once been real people and created biographies for them.

The key concept is the belief that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events,

So far, you are doing ok. It is a hypothesis that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events (like Zeus, like Heracles).

whereby kings and conquerors are later deified (i.e. after death.) So "to euhemerize" is to look at the myths and determine from them what really happened in history.

Off the rails. You seem to be following Euhemerus's error. Euhemerus was wrong that that those events really happened in history. His account the historical Zeus was not an attempt to look at what the myth and derive what really happened. To euhemerize is to create a fictional account of a mythical being's real history.

[cienfuegos]

GDon: You are literally committing logicide with this word.

I don't know why the precise definition of this word is so important to you. It makes no difference if Carrier uses it correctly or not (he is, though). We know what he means, if he uses it incorrectly, it doesn't change what his theory is. It also doesn't affect the strength of his theory. He believes that a mythical character (Jesus) was historicized. I am not sure that what occurred quite fits what happened (I'll accept junego's disagreement with me). Zeus was a mythical being and recognized by many as entirely mythical. Jesus is a personal savior who was actually believed to be real by the same people who created fictional biographies. While I do accept junego's comments that the intent isn't what matters, I still think there is a subtle a difference. My feeling is that the author of GMark did not think Jesus had lived on earth during the time of Pontius Pilate.

[Bernard Muller]

cienfuegos,

My feeling is that the author of GMark did not think Jesus had lived on earth during the time of Pontius Pilate.

You continue to amaze me. Over & over again, you stated your mythicist position was based on a set of beliefs. Now, your take on GMark is from a "feeling" of yours.
What happened to your historical method? Did you apply it to your beliefs and feeling?

Cordially, Bernard

[GakuseiDon]

If we are going to continue this conversation, it would be good to provide:
(a) definition/s of "euhemerism" and "euhemerize"
(b) actual examples from ancient sources.

For a definition, I'm happy with Carrier's that I gave on the last page. Carrier wrote:

• Euhemerism is mentioned in all major encyclopedias I know. Euhemerization is even in standard dictionaries like Merriam-Webster: to euhemerize is “to interpret (mythology) on the theory of euhemerism,” and the theory of euhemerism is:
  
  "[The] attempt to find a historical basis for mythical beings and events. It takes its name from Euhemerus (fl. 300 BC), a Greek scholar who examined popular mythology in his Sacred History and asserted that the gods originated as heroes or conquerors who were admired and later deified. Though modern scholars do not accept euhemerism as the sole explanation for the origin of gods, it is thought to be valid in some cases.

There is also the Wiki page on Euhemerus, which states (my underlining): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

• The term euhemerism is derived from his name, and is the philosophy attributed to Euhemerus which holds that many mythological tales can be attributed to historical persons and events, the accounts of which have become altered and exaggerated over time... 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.

Oy vey. We have produced definitions of the word over and over again in this thread. You are beating a dead horse with your mangled misreading of the definitions. Just ask yourself: Was Zeus a real person deified? Was Heracles a real person deified? No, I think the evidence shows that they were mythical beings historicized. Euhemerus believed that the mythical gods had once been real people and created biographies for them.

I honestly don't understand how you are saying anything here different to what I am saying, based on the definition. Do I think that Zeus was a real person deified? No. But I am not a euhemerist. Would a euhemerist think that Zeus was a real person deified? I think the answer is yes.

What am I missing?

The key concept is the belief that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events,

So far, you are doing ok. It is a hypothesis that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events (like Zeus, like Heracles).

whereby kings and conquerors are later deified (i.e. after death.) So "to euhemerize" is to look at the myths and determine from them what really happened in history.

Off the rails. You seem to be following Euhemerus's error. Euhemerus was wrong that that those events really happened in history. His account the historical Zeus was not an attempt to look at what the myth and derive what really happened. To euhemerize is to create a fictional account of a mythical being's real history.

Okay, I accept that this is your definition for 'to euhemerize': to create a fictional account of a mythical being's real history. For me, it discounts the emphasis in Carrier's definition that the kings were men who were later deified.

GDon: You are literally committing logicide with this word.

I don't know why the precise definition of this word is so important to you. It makes no difference if Carrier uses it correctly or not (he is, though). We know what he means, if he uses it incorrectly, it doesn't change what his theory is. It also doesn't affect the strength of his theory. He believes that a mythical character (Jesus) was historicized.

Yes, I agree. I've stated this several times in this thread already: even if he is using the terms incorrectly, it doesn't undercut his overall mythicist theory. The Gospels could be fictional stories like "The Bacchae."

[cienfuegos]

cienfuegos,

My feeling is that the author of GMark did not think Jesus had lived on earth during the time of Pontius Pilate.

You continue to amaze me. Over & over again, you stated your mythicist position was based on a set of beliefs. Now, your take on GMark is from a "feeling" of yours.
What happened to your historical method? Did you apply it to your beliefs and feeling?

Cordially, Bernard

I don't assert it as a fact. That's the difference.

[cienfuegos]

honestly don't understand how you are saying anything here different to what I am saying, based on the definition. Do I think that Zeus was a real person deified? No. But I am not a euhemerist. Would a euhemerist think that Zeus was a real person deified? I think the answer is yes.

What am I missing?

Ok, so we can agree that euhemerism is the historicization of a mythical being.There's no confusion then.

Okay, I accept that this is your definition for 'to euhemerize': to create a fictional account of a mythical being's real history. For me, it discounts the emphasis in Carrier's definition that the kings were men who were later deified.

Now we're back to confusion: what is a mythical being's "real history?" Carrier's definition is the same as mine: mythical beings who became historicized.