Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

[Hawthorne]

Thanks, maryhelena, for spending the time on this definition. I think we have saturated the possibilities and have to just agree to disagree. I'm fine with letting any potential readers of this discussion draw their own conclusions out of it. This discussion has been fruitful for me, even though, when it started I really didn't care about the whole idea of euhemerization. I believe I have a much clearer view of the concept, even if it is slightly at odds with the one you prefer. I don't really accept wiki as an authority on this and you have provided other sources that are more substantive from which I have drawn my conclusions. Thank you for that.

[maryhelena]

Thanks, maryhelena, for spending the time on this definition. I think we have saturated the possibilities and have to just agree to disagree. I'm fine with letting any potential readers of this discussion draw their own conclusions out of it. This discussion has been fruitful for me, even though, when it started I really didn't care about the whole idea of euhemerization. I believe I have a much clearer view of the concept, even if it is slightly at odds with the one you prefer. I don't really accept wiki as an authority on this and you have provided other sources that are more substantive from which I have drawn my conclusions. Thank you for that.

For those that might be interested in mythology - the Wikipedia page on mythology is worth a read. The page gives many references to take the subject of mythology further - if one so desires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Origins_of_myth

Euhemerism

Euhemerism

One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[23][24] According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborated upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gained the status of gods.[23][24] For example, one might argue that the myth of the wind-god Aeolus evolved from a historical account of a king who taught his people to use sails and interpret the winds.[23] Herodotus (5th century BC) and Prodicus made claims of this kind.[24] This theory is named "euhemerism" after the mythologist Euhemerus (c.320 BC), who suggested that the Greek gods developed from legends about human beings.[24][25]

Below a link to FRDB where a discussion on what constitutes myth took place some time ago. A poster, 'tanya', looking to challenge the usual definitions of myth......

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... ost7107621

[Hawthorne]

Just ask yourself:

Euhemerism

One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[23][24] According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborated upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gained the status of gods.[23][24] For example, one might argue that the myth of the wind-god Aeolus evolved from a historical account of a king who taught his people to use sails and interpret the winds.[23] Herodotus (5th century BC) and Prodicus made claims of this kind.[24] This theory is named "euhemerism" after the mythologist Euhemerus (c.320 BC), who suggested that the Greek gods developed from legends about human beings.[24][25]

Was the wind-god Aeolus based on a real person?
Were the Greek gods based on real people?

Every time you attempt to prove your point, you reinforce my point. Again, euhemerism is the belief that gods are elaborated legends based on real historical people.

You have the sequence backwards. It goes like this:

Myth--->Attempts to explain myths as based on real people. This does not imply that the myths are actually based on real historical people. Zeus was not a real person, as far as I am aware.

You want to insert actual real events at the beginning:

Real events--->Myths---->historians uncover the real events from the myths.

All your sources, even the wikipedia source, are saying this:

Euhemerism is a rationalizing method of interpretation, 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.

[maryhelena]

Just ask yourself:

Euhemerism

One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[23][24] According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborated upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gained the status of gods.[23][24] For example, one might argue that the myth of the wind-god Aeolus evolved from a historical account of a king who taught his people to use sails and interpret the winds.[23] Herodotus (5th century BC) and Prodicus made claims of this kind.[24] This theory is named "euhemerism" after the mythologist Euhemerus (c.320 BC), who suggested that the Greek gods developed from legends about human beings.[24][25]

Was the wind-god Aeolus based on a real person?
Were the Greek gods based on real people?

Every time you attempt to prove your point, you reinforce my point. Again, euhemerism is the belief that gods are elaborated legends based on real historical people.

You have the sequence backwards. It goes like this:

Myth--->Attempts to explain myths as based on real people. This does not imply that the myths are actually based on real historical people. Zeus was not a real person, as far as I am aware.

You want to insert actual real events at the beginning:

Real events--->Myths---->historians uncover the real events from the myths.

All your sources, even the wikipedia source, are saying this:

Euhemerism is a rationalizing method of interpretation, 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.

[Hawthorne]

Yes, I can see you aren't getting it.

In fact, your own theory of Christian origins could be an act of euhemerization if, in fact, the Jesus story is myth. We have a (so some say) myth of a god, Jesus Christ, and you are attempting to argue that our myths are imperfectly remembered history. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, I am trying to get you to see where you err in your interpretation of the definition of euhemerization.

[ancient]

Many Chinese cities and locations share momentous glory of ancient China. These political, architectural, and urban centers housing many marvels stand testimony to China’s great past that shaped it quest for nationhood.
http://www.Ancient-China-History.com

[Charles Wilson]

Don't forget "The Original": The Sumerian King List.

"After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years. En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years. Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years. 3 kings; they ruled for 108000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Larag. In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 years. 1 king; he ruled for 28800 years. Then Larag fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Zimbir. In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 years. 1 king; he ruled for 21000 years. Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag. In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years. 1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 years. Then the flood swept over...

"After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kic. In Kic, Jucur became king; he ruled for 1200 years. Kullassina-bel ruled for 960 (ms. P2+L2 has instead: 900) years. Nanjiclicma ruled for (ms. P2+L2 has:) 670 (?) years. En-tarah-ana ruled for (ms. P2+L2 has:) 420 years..."

And so on...

CW

[Mental flatliner]

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?

The farther you are in time from an historical event, the less you understand (for obvious reasons), the less you understand the context, and the less you understand the culture.

This is good news for scam artists: the less the public really knows about Jesus, the easier it is to make up anything you want and pass it off as the truth.

[MrMacSon]

The farther you are in time from an historical event, the less you understand (for obvious reasons), the less you understand the context, and the less you understand the culture.

This is good news for scam artists: the less the public really knows about Jesus, the easier it is to make up anything you want and pass it off as the truth.

This is relevant in the context that what was written about Jesus in the first few centuries, that has survived, was probably written several generations after he lived.

The claims the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, & Luke) were written late 1st C are mere bare assertions - they are unsubstantiated apologetic assertions.

The surviving apocryphyl gospels show show disagreement or variation on the NT, too eg. the Gospel according to Thomas.

[Mental flatliner]

The farther you are in time from an historical event, the less you understand (for obvious reasons), the less you understand the context, and the less you understand the culture.

This is good news for scam artists: the less the public really knows about Jesus, the easier it is to make up anything you want and pass it off as the truth.

This is relevant in the context that what was written about Jesus in the first few centuries, that has survived, was probably written several generations after he lived.

The claims the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, & Luke) were written late 1st C are mere bare assertions - they are unsubstantiated apologetic assertions.

The surviving apocryphyl gospels show show disagreement or variation on the NT, too eg. the Gospel according to Thomas.

Nothing in this post is supported by evidence.
I therefore reject it as opinion.

Authoritatively speaking, the debates about the gospels that took place from 100-400 AD are not authoritative unless they quote more valuable sources (earlier sources) as some do. Setting them (or more modern authors) in authority above the gospels is not appropriate. Temporally, only the gospels are in context and have Jesus' period and activity in mind in their writings.