Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

[GakuseiDon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DCHindley]

Perhaps we should distinguish the difference between "Myth" (stories created to explain commonplaces such as the cycle of birth & death, the changing of the seasons, or the existence of evil, involving supernatural beings in the explanatory process) and "Legend" (stories of extraordinary exploits of extraordinary human beings like kings and generals which accrete to the remembrance of the man or woman).

Myth refers, then, to the "immortal" gods which symbolize eternal realities that beg explanation.

Legend refers, on the other hand, to the "mortal" gods, i.e., great men of the past who have been elevated to divine status in acknowledge of their benefits to mankind.

Whether we can quibble about whether "Myth" and "Legend" are functionally the same as fiction, there is something quite different between a fiction that explains eternal truths and fictions that commemorate the achievements of a Hero of the distant past. I doubt that any of the ancient authors thought that the "mortal" divinity of a Hero or Titan was anything approaching the "immortal" divinity of the eternal gods. Even the Greek "Zeus" can be a Hero, despite being considered a handy stand-in for the eternal Jupiter.

To consider Euhemerus as a historicizer of Myth (i.e., Legend), you have to accept the completely fictitious nature of the myths that he started with. This would only be applicable to the Myths surrounding the immortal gods. However, the myths surrounding the several Greek gods he places in a pseudo-historical setting are not explanations for eternal truths, but stories that laud their achievements, and hence about mortal gods. To Euhemerus, he wasn't historicizing a Mythical immortal, but explaining how he thought mortals could be so awesome that they deserved deification, at least in Legend.

DCH

[outhouse]

b) Because we can't read authors' minds centuries or millennia after they wrote, we can only judge the effects of what they wrote.


.

You mean we should not go in blind and make assumptions.

Most scholars do not, unlike mythicist, most scholars are trained in exactly how these authors were trained being able to place these text into proper context.


People who have not been trained in how Aristotle taught rhetoric should not even be posting on topics they are so ignorant of. [not you just in general]

The prose of rhetorical writing is an advanced education only a few here even have a grasp on, and without it, I would agree your right they cannot read into the authors minds where the educated can.

Did you have an actual argument or are you just having a snark and engaging in argumentum ad hominen?

Your lack of ability to refute my reply is noted.

[outhouse]

And while Carrier continues to advocate this theory the Jesus historicists will be laughing all the way to the bank...

Earl Doherty, with his theory re a Pauline celestial christ figure historicized, drove the ahistoricist position into a cul-de-sac. Sadly, very sadly, Carrier, with his misrepresentation of euhemerism, has added an unnecessary road-block that is inhibiting any reversing out of that cul-de-sac.

Agreed.

Its laughable they will not admit how lost they have become.

[outhouse]

The debate goes for nearly 2 hours, but definitely should be of interest to anyone who would like to see a scholarly criticism of Carrier's theories.

.

I have no need to ne convinced in his errors by others I already see to many holes to put any effort in at all.

What is funny is we have clear track records of Jewish culture making mythological figures into historical ones. Lots of them in fact.

Moses, Abraham and family, Noah and his Family, almost all the early patriarchs are 100% mythology, and we see these coming and going, forward and backwards.

They have many things in common, all set long in the past. While I have not investigated if they're any that were created 20 years in the past like the Jesus character, for the most part they were not.

Moses and Abraham literary creations that reflect a certain time periods needs. Noah has its historical roots in Sumerian legends re told in Israelites cultural needs.

The fact we have Paul writing within a few decades of perceived events, and claiming there were already other teachers and scripture, throws a monkey wrench in their laughable hypothesis that cannot be removed.

[maryhelena]

To Euhemerus, he wasn't historicizing a Mythical immortal, but explaining how he thought mortals could be so awesome that they deserved deification, at least in Legend.

DCH

So basically, re Euhemerus, we are dealing with two categories, two classes, of gods. Methinks this basic position is getting lost in this thread.

Euhemerus is dealing with the class of gods that were mortals defied - deified while alive or after death. These mortal deified gods are not "real deities".

http://onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=207716&p=38

Nickolas P Roubekas, Teaching Fellow in Religious Studies, University of Aberdeen.

Bulletin for the Study of Religion
Volume 43, Number 2/April 2014
---------------------------

What is Euhemerism? A Brief History of Research and Some Persisting Quetions.


The Hellenistic euhemerism has Zeus as its protagonist and narrates how kings were defied while still alive. The deification of previous dead kings plays a secondary role in the narrative; the Sacred Inscription is about Zeus. At the same time, this Hellenistic euhemerism makes an explicit distinction between earthly (Olympian) and heavenly gods, with Euhemerus maintaining that it is the latter group of deities that is truly divine.

https://www.academia.edu/5792859/Which_ ... e_of_Jesus

Which Euhemerism will you use? Celsus on the Divine Nature of Jesus.

Nickolas P. Roubekas

Euhemerus’ theory was formulated as follows: The ancient gods were once mortal kings that were deified due to their good deeds, others during their lifetime and others post mortem. Those gods were not real deities; on the contrary, as Euhemerus put it, true divinity really exists not here on earth but in the heavens and in the natural phenomena.

===========

Footnote 4:
Bolle makes a distinction between euhemerism as Euhemerus formulated it and as it was used and exploited by later, mainly Christian, writers. The latter only focused on what Euhemerus said regarding the Olympian gods and completely overlooked (or were unaware of) his explicit categorization of the gods into earthly and heavenly deities. This classification does not serve as proof of his atheism - as the Christian writers interpreted it. For the Messenean writer the divinity is to be found in the heavens and not on mount Olympus. The absence of this classification in the works of Christian apologists who utilized Euhemerus theory (or, better, are considered to have done so) is what Bolle calls euhemerismus inversus).

Footnote 5:
For example, the majority of scholars maintaine that Euhemerism is about dead kings deified posthumously. This constitutes a Christian biased reading of the theory that has managed to establish itself as what Euhemerus argued....for Euhemerus did not say that the first gods were dead kings, he said that they were living kings.....Euhermus’ earthly/Olympian gods were both living and dead deified kings.

my formatting

Thus, euhemerism is not a theory dealing with "real deities" that were brought down to earth via a process of historicizion.

If one wants to propose a theory such as bringing "real deities" down to earth to become humans - one cannot look to euhemerism to support such a theory.

[GakuseiDon]

The fact we have Paul writing within a few decades of perceived events, and claiming there were already other teachers and scripture, throws a monkey wrench in their laughable hypothesis that cannot be removed.

It's still a possibility though. Carrier has brought up the example of the UFO crashing at Roswell. Within a few decades, stories about Roswell grew and were embellished. There are other examples also, like the angels of Mons, the John Frum cargo cults. But arguing by counter-example is a fallacy. There are always possible counter-examples to almost any scenario. The question stil remains about what is most plausible.

[GakuseiDon]

I've extracted parts from Richard Carrier's OHJ dealing with euhemerization and the Gospels below, with the page numbers showing the location. There are more passages dealing with those topics, but I've only extracted those parts that I think are most pertinent. I've added my own comments in some sections.

• Page 216
  As pagan literature came to revere the historical narrative as well, the trend of representing mythology in poetry and drama began to decline and in its place arose a new trend of representing mythology in prose history and biography, which looked exactly like actual history and biography, yet was complete fabrication (see my discussion of 'myth' as a quasi genre in Chapter 10, §2).

To me, based on what Carrier says here and later, he is close to suggesting that the Gospels 'looked exactly like actual history and biography.'

• Page 217
  A classic example of this trend is seen in the phenomenon of euhemeriza­tion (Element 45). Thus, 'lives' of nonhistorical demigods were written, as if they actually existed and could be placed in history, and one could argue about which stories about them were true and which false, even though in fact they never existed at all (and so all the stories about them were false). A good example of this is Plutarch's biography of Romulus: this was a Roman adoption of a Greek demigod who later was associated with some of the founding legends of the Roman people (his Greek origins by then completely forgotten: Element 47)...
  
  In fact, representing myth as fact became so popular, a trend arose of 'inventing' sources to cite as one's authorities, thus completing the representation that myths were actual histories. This is how myth began to look under the Roman Empire. When we collect all of this pagan faith literature together, we see exactly the same outcome: almost all of it is fabricated, yet passed off as true. This was the norm. [162]

Interesting comment about the trend of 'inventing' sources. Obviously Luke comes to mind in Luke 1. And again, if the Gospels do fall into the group above, the inference is that the Gospels were represented as 'actual histories.'

• Page 222
  Element 45: A popular version of this phenomenon in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization: the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified. We already noted Plutarch's criticism of the trend (which he frowns upon, but in so doing concedes its popularity) in Element 14. [174]
  
  Euhemerus was a Greek writer of the early third century BCE, who wrote a book called The Sacred Scriptures in which he depicted an imaginary scholar discovering that Zeus and Uranus were once actual kings. In the process Euhemerus invents a history for these 'god kings', even though we know there is no plausible case to be made that either Zeus or Uranus was ever a real person. Yet the idea caught on; biographies and histories of non­existent people proliferated, and ancient literature flowered with attempts to assign mythic heroes and gods to real historical periods and places. [175] Even before that there were attempts to develop a 'historical' Hercules to justify territorial disputes in the Peloponnesus, and afterwards the origin of Rome was explained by appealing to an eponymous godman named 'Romulus'. And many other uses were found for the procedure, as we saw for inventing King Arthur, Ned Ludd, Abraham, Moses, and other national heroes I explored in Chapter 1 (§4). There was nothing at all unusual about doing this.

Many of the gods were already thought to have been involved in the Trojan War, as Carrier notes elsewhere. So if they were mortal men, they weren't 'placed' there -- they would have been thought to have already been there. Similarly how Carrier words that Romulus was 'placed' at the founding of Rome. I think there were already early myths with Romulus' involvement in the founding. So if he was a totem spirit originally as Carrier suggested, I don't know how that would work. So I need to go to the references to see how much of that flies.

• Page 248
  That leaves one common objection: if Jesus was a celestial deity already euhemerized by the time the Gospels were written, then that supposedly suggests an extraordinarily rapid pace of legendary development, which must surely be very improbable. But this is not a valid objection, for three decisive reasons.
  
  First, a deity can easily be euhemerized from day one. It does not require any time lag at all. Especially if that deity is euhemerized to cre­ate an exoteric allegory for both the public and new in itiates, whose esoteric meaning is explained only to more advanced members (Elements 13 and 14). Although the deities and heroes in the Rank-Raglan class were either euhemerized centuries after they were first worshiped as deities (like Osiris), or at the moment of their invention they were placed centuries in the past (like Jason), this was not because either was necessary for the process to work. Rather, it was because euhemerization had not become popular until centuries after these gods had become popular (in the case of preexistent deities), or because a cultural trend had already been established of placing all heroes in the same imagined Age of Heroes (around the assumed time of the Trojan War), as if nothing exciting ever happened in any other century of history (or, in the case of Romulus, because leg­end required that he be placed in the already-traditional century of Rome's founding-so he would have been placed there no matter when his tale was created). We can therefore draw no conclusions about what was possible simply from what early Greeks and Romans chose to do.

From the first sentence in the quote, I wonder if I've misread Carrier here. He seems to be suggesting:
1. Jesus as celestial being
2. Jesus euhemerized as mortal man
3. THEN legendary development that leads to the Rank-Raglan hero seen in the Gospels.

Unless I've missed it, I'm not sure what Carrier is suggesting the trajectory from 2 to 3 above. Something to mull over. Could be that the first version of the euhemerized Jesus is what is seen in 1 Clement and other early epistles -- some bare biographical details. Then someone fleshes it out based on other literary influences.

These final quotes deal with the development of the Gospels:

• Page 287
  But the problem of 'where to put him' in history, which was just as eas­ily answered for every other euhemerized demigod in antiquity (Element 45), could also be solved by the obvious logic of placing him at the imag­ined founding of the city or institution that worships him. That is why the mythical Romulus was placed in history 'at the founding of Rome'. Jesus, then, would most naturally fit into history 'at the founding of the Church'.
  
  p 507
  That very trend to euhemerize (and thus make more mundane the tales of cosmic gods) was actually typical (Element 45). Indeed, to serve their obvious function as models for missionary life, values and teaching, not only must Jesus' story be transformed to resemble the earthly experience of missionaries (by having him interact with the world and society they live in), but a Gospel's text also becomes considerably more powerful and effective if it is also taken literally. As I've said before (Chapter 8, § 12). Because it's harder to believe you should follow a fictional model, whereas if you believe Jesus really did and said these things, then you have a much stronger impetus to be awed by that and strive to follow his example.
  
  Such historicizing also gave church hierarchies more control over doc­trine and a rhetorical advantage over competitors, and thus it is more likely to be an observed feature of the eventually prevailing sect.
  
  Page 560, note 62
  Mark's euhemerization would logically transfer Jesus' demonic enemies to earthly ones, leading to the allegory of internecine betrayal in the Judas narrative (where the whole world conspires to kill him: Romans, Jews and 'Christians'). On which see also Carrier, Proving History, pp. 317- 19 nn. 69-72.
  
  p 609
  When we consider the prospect of newly evangelized Christians, handed a euhemerized Gospel, but not yet initiated into the full secret, and then being set loose to spread their unfinished beliefs and founding their own churches and developing their own speculations, the idea that a myth could be mistaken as and transformed into 'history' in just a few generations is not so implausible as it may seem, particularly given that the geographical distances involved were large, lifespans then were short, and legends often grow with distance in both time and space. There may even have been a 'transitional' state of the cult in which the historical narratives were seen as playing out what was simultaneously occurring in the heavens (so one could believe both narratives were true), or in which certain sect leaders chose to downplay or reinterpret the secret doctrines and sell the public ones as the truth instead (as Origen seems to have thought was a good idea).
  
  p 613
  The Gospels were simply constructed to euhemerize Jesus, as all mythical demigods had been (Element 45), modeling him after other historical and mythical counter-cultural heroes (Element 46), and then ultimately integrating him into the ubiquitous Rank-Raglan hero-type (Element 48), and matching an equally popular model of celestially translated heroes (Element 47), all appropriately Judaized.

[maryhelena]

<snip>
From the first sentence in the quote, I wonder if I've misread Carrier here. He seems to be suggesting:
1. Jesus as celestial being
2. Jesus euhemerized as mortal man
3. THEN legendary development that leads to the Rank-Raglan hero seen in the Gospels.

Thanks GDon for the quotes from Carrier' OHJ.

I just want to make a point re the above: I'm beginning to think that what is behind Carrier' misuse of euhemerism lies in his rejection of Q. Without Q he has 'lost' Doherty' Q preacher figure - albeit for Doherty an imaginary preacher figure. Doherty was able to utilize this Q figure, and its community, to link in with the Pauline celestial christ community. Doherty sought to fuse the earthly Q preacher (albeit for him imaginary - and for Wells historical..) with the Pauline celestial christ figure. Without Q Carrier has to have some means of getting his Pauline celestial christ down to earth. Rather than simply proposing a historicization he has attempted to gain more mileage by a misuse of the theory of Euhemerus.

Thus, methinks, I should drop the term Carrier/Doherty theory and call this new version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position *Carrier mythicism*. I wonder what Doherty will make of it. The 'student' might have done well to drop Q - but, methinks the 'master' might well think he has gone too far in the opposite direction. No Q does not mean that the gospel story has no earthly, historical, core.

Richard Carrier on Q and Mark Goodacre:

When I finally did read his Case against Q ........... I found his evidence more than sufficient and his argument thoroughly persuasive. Arguments for Q, by contrast, uniformly suck, in respect to both logic and evidence.

I have since read more on the subject (both his work and that of others who agree with him; especially his website on Q which is an excellent resource; and then what critics of his arguments I could find), and I have concluded that the evidence is fairly conclusive from any objective standpoint:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/...rrier+Blogs%29

Earl Doherty on FRDB

If Richard Carrier thinks that Mark Goodacre has provided a slam-dunk case for no Q, then he has just gone down several points in my estimation of him. Clearly, in dismissing JNGNM as "90% speculation" he must have decided to skip my chapters on Q. The flaws in Goodacre's case are legion.

Earl Doherty on FRDB

(2) You have little or no knowledge of my case if you think that I am saying that the Gospels, or Mark, are entirely based on historicizing the Pauline Christ. In fact, the Gospels would not ever have been written on such a basis, for in large part they are dependent not on Paul or any celestial Christ but on an historical "kingdom of God" preaching movement of the first century centered in Galilee and represented in the Q document. (Yes, yes, I know, not everyone accepts a hypothetical Q, but that is a separate matter, and I have presented a far better case for accepting a Q than the no-Q alternative.)

The entire teaching, miracle-working and prophetic content of the Gospels is derived not from Paul, whose celestial Christ had nothing to do with such things, but from an imagined founder of the Q movement (that he was imagined and inserted into the evolving Q tradition at a later date I have fully argued). Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence. It could even be an allegorical aspect of the beliefs of the Q/Markan sect that believers themselves, though suffering death, were fated for exaltation/resurrection, owing little to the Christ cult which operated separately on the first and early second century scene.

[GakuseiDon]

I just want to make a point re the above: I'm beginning to think that what is behind Carrier' misuse of euhemerism lies in his rejection of Q. Without Q he has 'lost' Doherty' Q preacher figure - albeit for Doherty an imaginary preacher figure. Doherty was able to utilize this Q figure, and its community, to link in with the Pauline celestial christ community. Doherty sought to fuse the earthly Q preacher (albeit for him imaginary - and for Wells historical..) with the Pauline celestial christ figure. Without Q Carrier has to have some means of getting his Pauline celestial christ down to earth. Rather than simply proposing a historicization he has attempted to gain more mileage by a misuse of the theory of Euhemerus.

Their different approaches to Q and what it means to their theories is something I never considered. That's an excellent and interesting insight, maryhelena. (Thanks for those quotes by Doherty on Q, by the way!)

Thus, methinks, I should drop the term Carrier/Doherty theory and call this new version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position *Carrier mythicism*. I wonder what Doherty will make of it. The 'student' might have done well to drop Q - but, methinks the 'master' might well think he has gone too far in the opposite direction. No Q does not mean that the gospel story has no earthly, historical, core.

I agree that it is better to differentiate between the two, rather than referring to both as a single "Carrier/Doherty" theory. Carrier has creditted Doherty for convincing him on the celestial Jesus side, but Carrier has developed it much further, filling in the gaps like his Philo/Zech 6 reference. And how they bring Jesus 'down to earth' is different as well, as you've already noted. So probably best to avoid the confusion by referring to Doherty's theories, and concentrate on what Carrier has brought to the table.