Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

[GakuseiDon]

Perhaps those mythicists that view the gospel JC as a historization of Paul's celestial Christ figure should clearly state what they are doing. i.e. they are not using the standard, the usual, definition of euhermerism. They are using 'reverse euhermerism' - a definition that seems to be used in connection with demythologizing Chinese mythology.

It's not even reverse euhemerism. Either way, whether the movement is god to man, or man to god, one end is a normal man, not a miracle-working one. At least that is the only way I've ever seen euhemerism defined. But perhaps I'm mistaken on this?

[maryhelena]

That's exactly it: turning a god into a supernatural miracle-working man is not Euhemerism. The end product is a normal man, though perhaps a great king, conqueror or sage. But Carrier floats the idea that "Euhemerism" includes the idea of a "celestial being" being placed "into history" on earth, which definition seems tilted deliberately to his theory of mythicism.

Carrier does use the word but one has to be quick to catch it. I'm never keen on picking up the odd mis-use of words at any time, least of all in a live talk. I hardly see how any of his argument is built upon the mis-use of this word. It is simply a mis-used word. We know what he meant in the video. If he continues to use it in print I'd pull him up and question him on it. To interpret this mis-use as some sort of "deliberate" tilt to support an argument as if unfairly or wrongly is to make quite a stretch and presume to know a lot more about the speakers mind-set than I think the evidence allows. How, exactly, does his erroneous use of the word strengthen his case? Would his case be changed at all whatever word he used there?

Neil, Carrier does seem to want to use the term 'euhemerism' in connection with his ideas:

To begin with, there have been hundreds of mythical persons historicized in history, in fact it was a particularly popular trend for demigods and in antiquity precisely where and when Christianity originated (it was called Euhemerism). So why do we think it’s hard to explain this? It can’t be any harder for Christianity than for any other instance (from the invention of Moses and elaborate biographies of him, to the invention, likewise, of Hercules, Romulus, Osiris, and so on; for a rather good explanation of this, see Noll’s chapter in Is This Not the Carpenter?).

--------------

Carrier, further, in a comment:

His other claim that no one would need a historical version is not only refuted by the entire trend of Euhemerism (why was everyone historicizing their celestial gods back then if there was no need to?) but also by the arguments of Noll (in Is This Not the Carpenter?).

On Bermejo-Rubio’s Dispassionate Plea for a Historical Jesus

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/5085

Another quote:

per-olov
October 1, 2013 at 6:59 am (UTC -8) Link to this comment
Reply
It is quite clear that the wiki article says,correctly i believe, that euhemrization is a process there historcial persons are mythologizised as gods. Its not the other Way round.

39.1

Richard Carrier
October 4, 2013 at 12:47 pm (UTC -8)
If a wikipedia article says that (I didn’t see such a statement), it’s incorrect. That would be confusing what Euhemerizers thought was true, with what was actually happening. It would also be exactly not what Euhemerus did (he started with a mythical Zeus and invented a historical Zeus out of that) and thus getting exactly the wrong way around what “doing what Euhemerus did” would be doing.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

Methinks that Carrier should clarify his use of euhemerism i.e. 'standard' usage or 'reverse' usage.

[maryhelena]

Perhaps those mythicists that view the gospel JC as a historization of Paul's celestial Christ figure should clearly state what they are doing. i.e. they are not using the standard, the usual, definition of euhermerism. They are using 'reverse euhermerism' - a definition that seems to be used in connection with demythologizing Chinese mythology.

It's not even reverse euhemerism. Either way, whether the movement is god to man, or man to god, one end is a normal man, not a miracle-working one. At least that is the only way I've ever seen euhemerism defined. But perhaps I'm mistaken on this?

Well now, is that not the problem for those mythicists who want to use reverse euhemerism - they need a miracle-working JC - and what they get via reverse euhemerism is a normal man..... ...man to god = promotion. god to man - demotion! A god-man hybrid is pure mythology and not reality...

Two quotes from Richard Carrier on euhemerism.

October 21, 2013 at 10:32 am

I don’t know where you get the idea of euhemerization being “mythical gods originally were real persons transfered into divine myths,” since the -ize means to transform into, to make into. Thus, a mythical god is made into a historical god, via euhemerization. Euhemerus did this, and then it became a trend to do it. That the people who do it think they are getting factual results is besides the point that the gods in question started mythical and were only made historical later–they were euhemer-ized.
-------------------------

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.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

[GakuseiDon]

Two quotes from Richard Carrier on euhemerism.

I don’t know where you get the idea of euhemerization being “mythical gods originally were real persons transfered into divine myths,” since the -ize means to transform into, to make into. Thus, a mythical god is made into a historical god, via euhemerization. Euhemerus did this, and then it became a trend to do it.

Thanks for the quotes! "A mythical god is made into a historical god, via euhemerization." That doesn't sound correct. AFAIK they are not made into historical "gods", but historical and normal "people". Though perhaps he means "made into a historical person and then thought to be a god".

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.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4090

My bolding above. His quote from Merriam-Webster is the correct definition, and appears to contradict his statement that it is a mythical god made into a historical god. The Wiki entry makes it clear (my bolding and underlining): 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.

Carrier seems to believe that the movement from "celestial god" to "historical god" was a trend deliberately undertaken, resulting in the Gospels. That may have been the case, but it isn't Euhemerism. The only way Euhemerism could be involved is via a middle step:

1. There was a celestial god Jesus Christ, believed in by a "Pauline" group
2. A Euhemerizing group decided that the god had actually lived as a man under Pilate, born as a historical personage, but had stories told about him "which were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores"
3. A proto-Christian group decided that the man was not just a man, but a kind of god, and created the Gospels.

But Carrier's position seems to be:

1. There was a celestial god Jesus Christ, believed in by a "Pauline" group
2. A group decided to place the god into a historical context (possibly not even thinking that he had ever been on earth), and created the Gospels.

Euhemerism -- as defined -- just doesn't need to be there. But I think in Carrier's mind, the definition of "Euhemerism" is actually step 2 above.

Anyway, just musing. Hopefully it will all become clear when his book comes out.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

Sounds like word games to me.

Peter - it's all word games when one comes to understanding or interpreting the NT story.......both sides play at this game. That's why if the search for early christian origins is ever going to get anywhere - word games have to be put aside and history; historical events as far as can be established, put on the table. That is step 1 - the rest is a word game.

Good points, Mary. I was too vague.

The argument proceeds from a discussion of "Euhemerism" and "reverse Euhemerism."

Historically speaking, these are nothing more than definitions. Modern definitions.

There was a fellow named Euhemerus (or some writing attributed to one?), and he said a few things, but he has no direct connection to early Christianity.

Because the argument proceeds from a discussion of a modern definition rather than from the evidence from ancient sources regarding early Christianity, I tend to view it more as a rhetorical flourish ("reverse Euhemerism" is a silly phrase, therefore...) rather than as a historical argument.

[neilgodfrey]

I have emailed Carrier to warn him against continuing with his logicide or to produce an explanation.

After Carrier, perhaps we can be freed to turn our attentions to New Testament scholars who indicate they do not understand basic terms like "Messianic Secret" or the "Documentary Hypothesis" or "data versus historical facts" or "positivist historiography" or "high/low cultures" or "philosophy of history versus methodology of history".

[DCHindley]

Some might realize that the author of Titus 1:12 said "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

The Wiki article on Euhemerus states that in his Sacred History, written in the late 4th century (around 305 BCE), a "register of the births and deaths of many of the gods, which his narrator persona discovered inscribed on a golden pillar in a temple of Zeus Triphylius on the invented island of Panchaea, [relates that] ... Zeus ... was ... a king of Crete, who had been a great conqueror; the tomb of Zeus was shown to visitors near Knossos, perhaps engendering or enhancing among the traditionalists the reputation of Cretans as liars." [citing S. Spyridakis: "Zeus Is Dead: Euhemerus and Crete" The Classical Journal 63.8 (May 1968, pp. 337-340), pg. 340].

The fact that residents of the island of Crete claimed their home had Zeus' tomb was demonstrated by Epiminedes (ca. 500-600 BCE), a Greek poet, a century of more previously:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O high and holy one,
the Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead; thou livest and abidest forever;
for in thee we live and move and have our being.

This poem is cited by the 9th century CE Syriac writer Isho'dad of Merv, Commentary on Acts, ed. M. D. Gibson, Horae Semiticae, X, Cambridge, 1913, p. 40; see also J. Rendel Harris' initial publication of his identification and hypothetical Greek translation of this citation in the Expositor, Oct. 1906, 305–17; Apr. 1907, 332–37; and Apr. 1912, 348–353. Isho'dad attributes the quote to Theodore of Mopsuestia (see above), who attributes it to the Critica of Epimenides, but suggests Theodore's quote might originate from another poem of Epimenides, "On Mino and Rhadamanthys." Both Poems are mentioned by name by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 1.112.

In effect, the author of Titus 1:12 is denying the suggestion that Zeus was a human who was lionized into a God, and equates the God of the Jews (his God) with Zeus, a concept expressed frequently in inscriptions that have a connection with diaspora Judaism in Palestine/Syria, which at least allow the pagan Greek patrons of their Synagogues to think so.

The author of Acts 17:23, 27-28, also has his portrait of Paul make this connection: "23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. ... 27 Yet he [the unknown god] is not far from each one of us, 28 for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.'"

The whole "unknown God" thing is elucidated by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 1.110:

So he [Epimenides] became famous throughout Greece, and was believed to be a special favourite of heaven. Hence, when the Athenians were attacked by pestilence, and the Pythian priestess bade them purify the city, they sent a ship commanded by Nicias, son of Niceratus, to Crete to ask the help of Epimenides. And he came in the 46th Olympiad, [595-592 BCE] purified their city, and stopped the pestilence in the following way. He took sheep, some black and others white, and brought them to the Areopagus; and there he let them go whither they pleased, instructing those who followed them to mark the spot where each sheep lay down and offer a sacrifice to the local divinity. And thus, it is said, the plague was stayed. Hence even to this day altars may be found in different parts of Attica with no name inscribed upon them, which are memorials of this atonement. [tr. Robert Drew Hicks, Loeb, 1925, Vol 1 of 2]

This unknown god is in fact Zeus. So, whether some gods were once humans who were elevated by story-telling into divinities, as Euhemerus suggests in his FICTIONAL ROMANCE, is true or not, has no bearing on "Pauline" Christianity, because "Paul" equated his God (that is, the God of the Jews) with the supreme Greek god, Zeus.

DCH

[maryhelena]

The Wiki entry makes it clear (my bolding and underlining): 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.

Well, that says it all really:

"Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events."

The gospel JC story; a story about a miracle working, walking on water, rising from the dead JC, is a mythological story. Thus, as such, euhemerism should be the correct approach to understanding or interpreting this story. i.e. there is history there. That the miracle working, walking on water, rising from the dead JC is not a historical figure does not remove this story from having some historical relevance. Euhemerism, as the above quote highlights, holds to the theory that myths are "distorted accounts of real historical events".

"Distorted accounts of real historical events". Distorted accounts. As such there is no way that there could be a corresponding historical figure that would fit with any of the variant interpretations of the gospel JC figure. The distortions between history and the mythological gospel story prohibit any such endeavor from succeeding.

Euhemerism can be of use to the ahistoricist/mythicists in their approach to the gospel JC story. Reverse euhemerism, applied to the Pauline cosmic christ figure becoming the gospel JC figure, seems, to me, to create more problems for the ahistoricist/mythicsts than this position needs.....it all becomes rather messy: Cosmic god dies/crucified in the heavens, reborn via virgin birth as man only to die, be crucified once more and reborn back to being god........Fine for fertile imaginations but for those seeking some reality, some history, some euhemerism in that NT story - such imaginations are inadequate. We don't just live in our minds - we also live in a physical reality. Thus, with mythology and euhemerism - while the imagination has it's value - so also does the history from which it produced it's distorted mythological, pseudo-historical, picture.

[Hawthorne]

Encyclopedia of Religion

Chinese Religion: Mythic Themes

In this sense, also, it may be questioned whether the oft-repeated claim that Chinese texts represent a curious instance of the reverse euhemerization of earlier mythic stories has any real significance. If reverse euhemerization refers to the false historicization of myth, making myth appear real, rather than the making of myths from actual historical events as the standard definition of euhemerization would have it, then it nevertheless seems that the intellectual and imaginative process involved was still primarily mythical in nature. In both cases history was fit to the demands of the mythic form. Both types of euhemerization are made up yet are to some degree historically factual.

http://librarum.org/book/16325/298

I have emphasized in maryhelena's quote a key and overlooked qualification. Maryhelena drew attention to the quote at the end, but the entry here clearly refers to "reverse" euhemerization as the "false historicization of myth, making myth appear real..."

Isn't this exactly the sense that Carrier uses the term? It is not clear from this quotation what the entry means by "are to some degree historically factual." It is clear that reverse euhemerization deals with events that are mythical, not real.

It seems like this point was missed in the later discussion.

[Hawthorne]

In fact, looking deeper into this, the entry cited by maryhelena does not support her conclusion and, it would appear, the pulled out phrase "oth types of euhemerization are made up yet are to some degree historically factual," is not a reference to historical events or people being mythologized. The terms in this discussion are not entirely transferable to the Jesus historicist vs. ahirstoricst view. In the case of the entry cited by maryhelena, "historicism" refers to the 'historicist' views of Bernhard Karlgren who advanced the point of view that "Han mythology was an ad hoc product of the period." Historicist in this piece refers to the artificial creation of myth. "Historically factual" is not a reference to events that can be said to have actually occurred, this being an exploration of Chinese Myths, after all, such as the Heavenly Questions. "Historical," in this sense, refers to the historical development of myth.