Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Golgotha and or the heavens are only placing the story - God with us - in different scenes.
Is West Side Story Romeo and Juliet?
How many other scenes are there? Why only Paul and Mark's attempts?
Is West Side Story Romeo and Juliet?
How many other scenes are there? Why only Paul and Mark's attempts?
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Since you didn't seem to understand my point, I'll elaborate. Above is an example of argumentum ad hominen, poisoning the well, and "othering". You assert, in essence, that "mythicist"(s) 'go in blind', 'make assumptions', don't 'place these texts into proper context' and don't 'act like most scholars'. No examples, no counter-arguments, no specifics - just painting people you disagree with as somehow less. I don't think this is helpful in a rational dicussion. I also find it a very ugly way to denigrate opponents. (Not claiming I've never done anything similar, I just try not to be all smug and snotty when I'm called out for it.)outhouse wrote:junego wrote: 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.
Although you generously [/snark] did not include me in the uneducated (and unwashed?) mass who should not be posting on things we haven't had appropriate training in, I was under the impression that this board was open to everyone willing to abide by the forum rules. If you have specific criticisms or information that could further knowledge and the discussion why don't you offer such instead of snarky potshots?outhouse wrote: 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]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here that you aren't actually asserting that some uber special education allows 'the educated' to 'read into the authors [sic] minds' with time traveling telepathy. This reads as another snarky, ad hominen blast at people you don't like and/or you disagree with.outhouse wrote: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 [sic] right they cannot read into the authors minds where the educated can.
There's not much to refute. You don't like and/or were irritated with people who have certain opinions different than yours and, rather than engage their arguments, you attacked the unknown and unnamed persons in this instance.outhouse wrote:Your lack of ability to refute my reply is noted.junego wrote:Did you have an actual argument or are you just having a snark and engaging in argumentum ad hominen?
You could have just said you were in a bad mood when you posted.
- maryhelena
- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
George Wells has his "itinerant Galilean preacher" fused with a Jewish Wisdom figure.GakuseiDon wrote: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.maryhelena wrote: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.
The Jesus Myth: G.A.Wells
Page 112/113
...the Jesus of the early epistles is not the Jesus of the gospels. The ministry of the latter may well be modelled on the career of an itinerant Galilean preacher of the early first century’ the former derives largely from early Christian interpretations of Jewish Wisdom figures with some influences from redeemer figures of pagan mystery religions.
Mark’s gospel fuses the two Jesus figures into one.
Page 112/113
...the Jesus of the early epistles is not the Jesus of the gospels. The ministry of the latter may well be modelled on the career of an itinerant Galilean preacher of the early first century’ the former derives largely from early Christian interpretations of Jewish Wisdom figures with some influences from redeemer figures of pagan mystery religions.
Mark’s gospel fuses the two Jesus figures into one.
Earl Doherty has "an imagined founder of the Q movement" plus a Pauline celestial christ movement.
Earl Doherty: FRDB
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..
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..
Richard Carrier has dropped any historical, earthly, movement, prior to his historicization of the Pauline Christ figure as the gospel Jesus figure. (This being, seemingly, a consequence of his rejection of Q).
Richard Carrier: OHJ. page 53.
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).
1) At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
2) Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
3) Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
4) As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
5) Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).
Wells fused two Jesus figures into the gospel Jesus figure. An "itinerant preacher and a Wisdom type redeemer figure.
Doherty dropped the "Itinerant preacher" for an imaginary figure. However, he keeps an "historical "kingdom of God" preaching movement" that links up with, merges with, the Pauline celestial christ movement.
Carrier has dropped the "Itinerant preacher" plus the imagined preacher figure plus the "historical "kingdom of God" preaching movement. He is left with the Pauline celestial christ figure - and how to get this figure down to earth. With no hook-up, no earthly linkage available to him, Carrier looks for support to euhemerism. For whatever reason, *historicization* was not a good enough argument......Euhemerism is a theory about the earthly origin of a category of gods in the ideas of Euhemerus. A theory that Carrier seeks to turn on it's head in order to support his mythicist theory of bringing the Pauline celestial christ figure down to earth as the gospel Jesus figure. A Pauline christ figure that has it's origins in heaven, in a celestial sphere. Will this upside-down 'euhemerism' save Carrier's mythicist theory from criticism by NT scholars?
Methinks not. A Pauline celestial christ figure crucified in the heavens who is later historicized and re-crucified on earth is devoid of logic. Carrier must choose between his Pauline celestial crucified christ figure and his historicization theory (mistakenly named euhemerism). Logic necessitates he can't have both! If nothing else, Carrier's misuse of euhemerism will draw attention to this very weak spot in his ahistoricist/mythicist theory.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
W.B. Yeats
- GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2331
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Just to expand on that, Wells actually points to Q to the source for details about a Galilean preacher in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke:maryhelena wrote:George Wells has his "itinerant Galilean preacher" fused with a Jewish Wisdom figure.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_ ... lding.html
- Some elements in the ministry of the gospel Jesus are arguably traceable to the activities of a Galilean preacher of the early first century, whose career (embellished and somewhat distorted) is documented in what is known as Q (an abbreviation for 'Quelle', German for 'source'). Q supplied the gospels of Matthew and Luke with much of their material concerning Jesus' Galilean ministry.
And Doherty points to Q as the source for details about a person symbolic of a group preaching the Kingdom of God, performing miracles, teaching repentence, etc. In other words... a whole community of Jesuses! As Doherty writes in J:NGNM:maryhelena wrote:Earl Doherty has "an imagined founder of the Q movement" plus a Pauline celestial christ movement.
- The itinerant prophets of this new 'counter-culture' expression announced the coming of the kingdom of God and anticipated the arrival of a heavenly figure called the Son of Man who would judge the world. They urged repentance, taught a new ethic and advocated a new society; they claimed the performance of miracles, and they aroused the hostility of the religious establishment. (Page 3)
As for miracles, there is no question that the Q prophets, as preachers of the kingdom, would have claimed the performance of signs and wonders, for every sectarian movement of the time had to possess that facility. These, especially miraculous healings, were the indispensable pointers of the kingdom. (Page 384)
Yes, I agree. It isn't fatal to his theory since he gives examples of Romulus and Orisis as precedents, and they may well fit better as examples of 'historicizing' into earth-based godmen. But it will raise questions about Carrier's methods. Redefining terms and making up one's own terminology are red flags when it comes to pseudoscience. Add his use of 'outer space' (incorporating both the corruptible lower heavens and incorruptible higher heavens!), Satan and demons being part of a 'half-corrupted imitation' zone in the firmament, his misreading of the Ascension of Isaiah, etc, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Still, for all that, Carrier has opened the door and I hope he is taken seriously so that these things can be examined in more depth.maryhelena wrote:If nothing else, Carrier's misuse of euhemerism will draw attention to this very weak spot in his ahistoricist/mythicist theory.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Im sorry you hate education and knowledge. But you made a statement that is unsubstantiated. We know much more then you think we do. And if you had a real education you would understand this well.junego wrote:Since you didn't seem to understand my point, I'll elaborate. Above is an example of argumentum ad hominen, poisoning the well, and "othering". You assert, in essence, that "mythicist"(s) 'go in blind', 'make assumptions', don't 'place these texts into proper context' and don't 'act like most scholars'. No examples, no counter-arguments, no specifics - just painting people you disagree with as somehow less. I don't think this is helpful in a rational dicussion. I also find it a very ugly way to denigrate opponents. (Not claiming I've never done anything similar, I just try not to be all smug and snotty when I'm called out for it.)
.
So in context, yes we can read their minds. We do know where they are coming from. We know how they were trained to write and with cultural and social anthropology historians can piece together quite a bit.
There are some words we are lost on context and we will never be able to recover context, but that does not mean we are blind.
Maybe you should throw out the ole weak "appeal to authority" argument just because I follow common knowledge you may not know of.
who should not be posting on things we haven't had appropriate training in,
They can embarrass themselves all they want.
Your failing to help yourself.I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here that you aren't actually asserting that some uber special education allows 'the educated' to 'read into the authors [sic] minds' with time traveling telepathy.
You can keep trying to claim ignorance can make credible educated guesses, but you will not be able to reach out to those who do not think like you, EVER.
What I stated about rhetoric is common knowledge to real scholars, many who have had to spend years studying and refining this skill I doubt you had a clue about.
This reads as another snarky, ad hominen blast at people you don't like and/or you disagree with.
Many people hate to be told they have no idea what they are even talking about.
You have no clue about my mentality here.You don't like and/or were irritated with people who have certain opinions different than yours and, rather than engage their arguments, you attacked the unknown and unnamed persons in this instance.
It is nothing about different opinions, it is about levels of education. I did not attack your position as much as point out your serious errors.
You could have just said you were in a bad mood when you posted.
This is entertainment, I know every player here and what they think, follow and believe. Knowing the playing field, it is easy to place the players in it.
I am sorry, but I do dislike ignorance when there is a wealth of online information.
Would you like to learn about rhetoric and how these authors were trained?
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8448
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
No kidding.outhouse wrote:Many people hate to be told they have no idea what they are even talking about.
Since this is a public forum where third parties can benefit from the discussion, including lurkers who are the majority of the audience reading this site at any given time, I do believe it would help everyone if telling people they have no clue were accompanied by actually giving them some clues...
I'd certainly prefer it.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Like thisPeter Kirby wrote:No kidding.outhouse wrote:Many people hate to be told they have no idea what they are even talking about.
Since this is a public forum where third parties can benefit from the discussion, including lurkers who are the majority of the audience reading this site at any given time, I do believe it would help everyone if telling people they have no clue were accompanied by actually giving them some clues...
I'd certainly prefer it.
I can provide links to Harvard where he can take a class on Paul with open enrollment, one day of class is spent on rhetoric that will open anyone's eyes who is not familiar nor heard of how this applies to writers of this period.Would you like to learn about rhetoric and how these authors were trained?
It was day 5, 6, or 7 I believe.
https://courses.edx.org/accounts/login?next=/dashboard
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8448
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Thanks... yeah this kind of stuff is good.
Sorry but I'm sure everyone gets tired of pure verbal tug-of-war, even (perhaps especially) those holding the rope.
Sorry but I'm sure everyone gets tired of pure verbal tug-of-war, even (perhaps especially) those holding the rope.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Point noted and taken.Peter Kirby wrote:Thanks... yeah this kind of stuff is good.
Sorry but I'm sure everyone gets tired of pure verbal tug-of-war, even (perhaps especially) those holding the rope.
It can be frustrating seeing things clearly knowing you cannot transpose your idea/argument to the other party involved when bias rules their train of thought. If it was just ignorance I would spend more time.
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8448
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?
Thanks. The lurkers need this information. They look up to you.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown