Euhemerized Jesus Reboot

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2898
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Euhemerized Jesus Reboot

Post by maryhelena »

Thanks, David, for the quotes. However, I didn't find anything in them that supports your definition of euhemerism:
"euhemerism" is a modern construct that can mean......the historicizing of a mythical figure".
That's really all this back and forth over euhemerism is about - can euhemerism be used to support the historicizing of a god. Frankly, I don't see the need to complicate a historicizing argument by using a concept that is generally understood to apply to the very opposite of what one is attempting to do. Why add baggage to ones argument that already has a heavy enough load to carry - historicizing does the job on it's own.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Euhemerized Jesus Reboot

Post by GakuseiDon »

DCHindley wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:DCHindley, thanks for your comments. But I'm not sure how they interact with the OP topic, i.e. whether the Gospels fall into the category of "Euhemerized" stories about a god. What is your view on that?
It just seemed to be necessary to define terms. In short, "euhemerism" is a modern construct that can mean BOTH the historicizing of a mythical figure AS WELL AS building of myth around a historical person, depending on who you consult.
While I agree that it is a modern construct (in that in ancient times they didn't think they were "euhemerizing"), it does seem that they thought in terms of the myths being about historical persons that were mythologized. Examples:

Octavius of Minucius: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... avius.html
  • On account of the merits of their virtue or of some gift, Euhemerus asserts that they were esteemed gods; and he enumerates their birthdays, their countries, their places of sepulture...

    For all the writers of antiquity, both Greek and Roman, have set forth that Saturn, the beginner of this race and multitude, was a man. Nepos knows this, and Cassius in his history; and Thallus and Diodorus speak the same thing. This Saturn then, driven from Crete, by the fear of his raging son, had come to Italy... Therefore it was certainly a man that fled, certainly a man who was concealed, and the father of a man, and sprung from a man... His son Jupiter reigned at Crete after his father was driven out. There he died, there he had sons. To this day the cave of Jupiter is visited, and his sepulchre is shown, and he is convicted of being human by those very sacred rites of his...
Tertullian explains that the allegories of the ancient myths do not hide the fact that the gods were originally men: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html
  • Since, therefore, there is clear evidence that Saturn once existed, it is in vain that you change his character. He whom you will not deny to have once been man, is not at your disposal to be treated anyhow, nor can it be maintained that he is either divine or Time. In every page of your literature the origin of Saturn is conspicuous. We read of him in Cassius Severus and in the Corneliuses, Nepes and Tacitus, and, amongst the Greeks also, in Diodorus, and all other compilers of ancient annals. No more faithful records of him are to be traced than in Italy itself. For, after (traversing) many countries, and (enjoying) the hospitality of Athens, he settled in Italy... whatever doubt prevails about the origin of Saturn, his actions tell us plainly that he was a human being. Since, therefore, Saturn was human, he came undoubtedly from a human stock...
In short: there was a belief that the myths of their day were about human beings, which today we call "Euhemerizing". This doesn't appear to be the idea that the myths of celestial gods were thought to be about those gods living on earth as demi-gods.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2898
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Euhemerized Jesus Reboot

Post by maryhelena »

GakuseiDon wrote:
In short: there was a belief that the myths of their day were about human beings, which today we call "Euhemerizing". This doesn't appear to be the idea that the myths of celestial gods were thought to be about those gods living on earth as demi-gods.
A scholar who seems very much interested in euhemerism:
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.

...............

Euhemerism is not only about dead kings deified after their death: this forms part of the theory.......Euhemerism is primarily about kings defied while they were alive. It is also about the real divinity, which can be only found in the heavens and in the natural phenomena and not on earth.

..............

33. Although Gamble (‘Euhemerism and Christology in Origen: “Contra Celsum” III 22–43,’14–15) explicitly differentiates between Euhemerus and ‘euhemerism’ based on the various interpretations his theory received by the Doxographic tradition, the Sceptical-Academic circles, the Stoics, and the early Christian apologists, he nevertheless acknowledges these different interpretations, exploitations, and presentations of Euhemerus’ theory as ‘euhemerism’. However, he fails to distinguish another intellectual group, that of modern scholars who continue presenting those branches of euhemerism as Euhemerism (with a capital ‘E’). In my view, these constitute distortions of euhemerism and not as they really are, i.e. quasi-euhemeristic or distortions of the original theory. Such an approach has led the study of euhemerism to include every possible theory that claims that religion is based on the deification of kings.

Journal of Early Christian History
Volume 2 Number 2, 2012

https://www.academia.edu/5792859/Which_ ... e_of_Jesus
pdf available for free download on site.

An additional two articles - would be interesting to see where this scholar is going with his arguments on euhemerism.......and if any theological interests have influenced his studies....
Dr Nickolas Roubekas

Peer Review Articles

What is Euhemerism? A Brief History of Research and Some Persisting Questions”, Bulletin for the Study of Religion 43, no.2 (2014): forthcoming.

“Post Mortem Makes a Difference: On a Redescription of Euhemerism and its Place in the Study of Divine Kingship”, Religion & Theology 19, no.3/4 (2012): 319-339

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sdhp/people/profiles/n.roubekas
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply