Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

[GakuseiDon]

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?

[Tenorikuma]

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.

Exactly. The point is that before euhemerization took place, they were merely gods. For example, Euhemerus (after whom this phenomenon is named) argued that Zeus was a real king who had lived in Crete. However, there never actually was a "historical Zeus".

[Peter Kirby]

The ancient belief regarding euhemerization is that great men became exaggerated in the telling until they were gods.

A modern term for this is apotheosis or simply legend.

A modern hypothesis on "euhemerization" basically denies the idea of Euhemerus in the majority of cases where we encounter both stories of a legendary person and a god. (With clear exceptions, such as the imperial cult, but the mechanism there had little to do with a long period of legendary tales.)

As a consequence, some have taken to calling the phenomenon of the tales of the human life of a deity "euhemerization." One sentence in the wiki captures this thought: "In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the 'historical interpretation' of mythology."

Still, you're probably right that it is both confusing and a misnomer.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

Exactly. The point is that before euhemerization took place, they were merely gods. For example, Euhemerus (after whom this phenomenon is named) argued that Zeus was a real king who had lived in Crete. However, there never actually was a "historical Zeus".

I was thinking more that, after euhemerization takes place, the person is merely human, though an extraordinary one. Thus, as an example of euhemerization, the Gospels are the "before" example and not the "after" one, as Carrier and Price seem to imply. The "after" case would be the Jesus of Celsus or (perhaps) Lucian.

It always struck me that Lucian would call Jesus a crucified "sage", given that he probably thought that Christianity itself was a "pernicious superstition", as expressed by Tacitus. But it makes sense if Lucian had an "euhemerized" view of Jesus: not a god, but someone who must have been extraordinary in some way to achieve acclaimations of godhood.

[maryhelena]

One thing I've seen pop up is the idea that the Gospels are "euhemerized" stories about Jesus, as part of a trend of taking celestial beings and placing them in history. Richard Carrier makes this comment in this Youtube video, around 51 mins in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

Dr Robert M Price also makes a similar point:
http://deconversionmovement.tumblr.com/ ... t-position

• "I am of the opinion that the varying dates are the residue of various attempts to anchor an originally mythic or legendary Jesus in more or less recent history. It would represent the ancient tendency toward euhemerism. In like manner, Herodotus had tried to calculate the dates of a hypothetically historical Hercules, while Plutarch sought to pin Osiris down as an ancient king of Egypt."

But as I understand it, "euhemerization" is the idea that the gods were originally mortal beings -- famous kings and heroes -- who were later thought to be gods. There are no miracles, no supernatural aspects to these euhemerized beings. So the Gospels don't appear to fit under the category of "euhemerized" stories about a god, at least as I understand the term. (That's not to say they don't fit under some other kind of category, like fiction).

Does anyone know anything that suggests the Gospels could fall under the category of "euhemerized" stories?

This came up in a discussion on Mark Goodacre's blog.....

Here are some points I made:
---------------------------------------

Wikipedia: Euhemerus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerus

Euhemerus has become known chiefly for a rationalizing method of interpretation, known as "Euhemerism", which treats mythological accounts as a reflection of historical events, or mythological characters as historical personages but which were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology.[14] Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[15] Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology through history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus.[16][17] However, Euhemerus is credited as having developed the theory in application to all myths, considering mythology to be "history in disguise".

-------------------
I don’t read anything in that account that even faintly hints at the possibility that euhermerism could be called upon to support the theory, of some mythicists, that the Pauline cosmic type JC was historicized as the gospel JC. Nothing. Euhermerism works from the perspective that historical events or historical personages were reshaped, exaggerated or altered in the process of becoming mythologized. “History in disguise”.

It makes absolutely no sense to attempt to turn euhermerism around so as to make it support the reverse of what it is upholding. The theory of some mythicists that the Pauline cosmic JC got historicized into the gospel JC is not euhermerism’s ‘History in disguise” - it is mythology in drag.

Euhermerism can be used to support a historical JC figure that got euhermerised into a celestial JC figure. Mythicists seeking to reverse this concept to support a historicizing of a myth cannot. The fundamental core of the concept of euhermerism is that history is relevant. For the specific mythicist idea in question on this blog - history is irrelevant.
----------------
Lets use some logic here. Euhermerism relates to historical events or figures being mythologized. If you want to reverse this i.e. to turn mythological figures into human form, you have, in actuality, not only demoted the ‘gods’ but emasculated them. That, I’m pretty sure, is not what the proposition, by some mythicists, is seeking to do with their Pauline cosmic JC becoming the gospel JC. It seems, to me, that such mythicists want their cake and they want to eat it too! Something has to give in this Euhermerism process. The historical figures died; the historical events past - the mythology lived on. Now, with reverse Euhermerisim it is the ‘gods’ that died in their cosmic setting and the human de-mythologized figure lived - i.e. no more gods. (and the human dies anyway.......)
---------------------------------------

http://www.writework.com/essay/reverse- ... re-general


In his essay Derk Bodde discusses both the process of euhemerization and its reverse. He relates the theory of Euhemerus, which states that, "the origin of myth is to be found in actual history, and that the gods and demigods of mythology were, to start with, actual human beings" (Bodde 48). Bodde explains that most myths have a basis in reality. People who once lived have, over time, become more than they were in their lives. Stories told of these people were handed down through the years with much embellishing have turned the real characters of the story into people or creatures so fantastic that their lives become myths and their actions too godlike to be human.

Bodde goes on to discuss the reverse process of euhemerization as used by Chinese scholars. He refers to it only as euhemerization, but says of it, " [a]s commonly used by writers on Chinese mythology, however, "euhemerization" denotes precisely the opposite process [to the one just described]: the transformation of what were once myths and gods into seemingly authentic history and human beings" (Bodde 48). Apparently, Chinese historians, upon reading ancient myths, would change the gods and demons in them to actual people; they would also change all incredible events to those more believable, or erase them entirely. In this manner well-intentioned historians have nearly eradicated the myths and legends of ancient China.

-------------------------------------------
What reverse Euhermerism would do for the proposition, of some mythicists, that a Pauline cosmic Christ figure became the gospel JC figure, is show it up for the irrational nonsense it is.

===========================

My comments taken from Mark Goodacre's blog:

Did Jesus Exist? with Richard Carrier and me on Unbelievable?

http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ ... rrier.html

http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ ... mentPage=2

[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.

[maryhelena]

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.

[GakuseiDon]

Euhermerism relates to historical events or figures being mythologized. If you want to reverse this i.e. to turn mythological figures into human form, you have, in actuality, not only demoted the ‘gods’ but emasculated them. That, I’m pretty sure, is not what the proposition, by some mythicists, is seeking to do with their Pauline cosmic JC becoming the gospel JC.

That's exactly it: turning a god into a supernatural miracle-working man is not Euhemerism. The end product (by which I mean the theoretical starting point) 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 contrived to support his theory of mythicism.

Now, it may well be that the Gospels were created as accounts of a celestial being being placed into history as a miracle-working man. But whatever that process is, it doesn't fit the definition of Euhemerism. (Interesting link to Bodde, btw, though I couldn't read the full article. Thanks!)

[neilgodfrey]

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?

[maryhelena]

Euhermerism relates to historical events or figures being mythologized. If you want to reverse this i.e. to turn mythological figures into human form, you have, in actuality, not only demoted the ‘gods’ but emasculated them. That, I’m pretty sure, is not what the proposition, by some mythicists, is seeking to do with their Pauline cosmic JC becoming the gospel JC.

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.

Now, it may well be that the Gospels were created as accounts of a celestial being being placed into history as a miracle-working man. But whatever that process is, it doesn't fit the definition of Euhemerism. (Interesting link to Bodde, btw, though I couldn't read the full article. Thanks!)

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.

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

" Both types of euhemerization are made up yet are to some degree historically factual. "

So, even with reverse euhermerization, history, 'factual' history, is relevant. i.e. both 'standard' euhermerization and 'reverse' euhermerization are dealing with a historical context. Methings the mythicists that propose a reverse euhermerization need to take note..................

Seems to me that whichever view of euhermerization one takes - the gospel JC story is not history. Rather it is a mythologizing of history, Jewish history. Not a euhermerization, a mythologizing, of one man - but a euhermerization, a mythologizing of Jewish history. A broader concept and one that did not compromise any Jewish sensitivities of turning men into gods.