Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by maryhelena »

Hawthorne wrote:
You quoted Richard Carrier

October 4 Richard Carrier:, 2013 at 12:47 pm (UTC -8)
If a wikipedia article says that (I didn’t see such a statement), it’s incorrect. That would be confusing what Euhemerizers thought was true, with what was actually happening. It would also be exactly not what Euhemerus did (he started with a mythical Zeus and invented a historical Zeus out of that) and thus getting exactly the wrong way around what “doing what Euhemerus did” would be doing.
So are you saying that Zeus was based on an historical person?

And...which of the Chinese myths in the source I challenged you on do you believe was based on real historical events?

Actually, to go more to the point: which Chinese god in these Chinese myths was based on a real person?
I'm not saying anything about Zeus - that was Carrier's quote....

Please re-read the original quote you are referencing regarding Chinese myths. That quote deals with 'reverse euhemerism' and contrasts that with the standard definition of euhemerism.

As to Carrier's quote above - Carrier needs to clarify his use of euhemerism. If he wants to use 'reverse euhemerism' in his arguments - so be it - but that does not nullify, cancel out, the standard definition of euhemerism. The Wikipedia article is not, re Carrier, "incorrect". What is incorrect is his denying, in that quote, the standard definition of euhemerism.

For those interested.....some quotes on euhemerism and 'reverse euhemerism'.


Kung Kung and the Flood: Reverse Euhemerism in the Yao Tien.


William G Boltz

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4 ... 3521918681
The striking absence of a well-developed body of myth sharply distinguishes ancient China from its Mediterranean and Mesopotamian counterparts. From the occurrences of numerous references to mythic figures and events in the corpus of extant pre-Han and early Han texts we know that this general absence is not original. Early Chinese civilization, like its Near Eastern and Classical Western parallels was apparently in possession of a considerable mythological tradition we now know are no more than scattered bits and pieces of the original mythic scheme. The process whereby these early myths were lost is generally referred to as euhemerization, or euhemerism; though as I shall show here euhemerism more sinico is technically the precise opposite of euhemerism in its proper Greek usage. The restoration of the lost Chinese myths from their fragmentary textual remains depends in a sense on revering that process of euhemerization. In fact; it is not so much that the myths are actually lost as that they are buried under layers of orthodox Juist (=’Confucian’) euhemerizing interpretations. Thus the restoration effort is largely a kind of textual analysis the goal of which is to peel away, so to speak, the Juist overlay in order to uncover the original myths.

p. 142

Euhemerism in the proper Greek sense is the belief that myth is nothing more than forgotten history, and what the Greeks enjoyed as their mythological heritage was, according to the doctrines of the fourth century B.C. Sicilian philosopher Euhemeros, just remote Greek history imperfectly remembered. The Chinese pattern at first glance seems to be precisely the opposite. If the Greeks can be said to have mythologized their history, the Chinese historicized their mythology. Through detailed analyses of the pre-Han texts we can try to reverse this process, and uncover a fair part of a buried mythological tradition that has lain for centuries under heavy layers of interpretation and reinterpretation based on the prevailing doctrines of the dominant Juist orthodoxy. When stripped of these pedantic interpretive layers, many text reveal an undeniable mythological content.

p. 152

I have called this reverse euhemerism because it differs from the usual Greek sense in that there is no Chinese mythology that we can claim is forgotten Chinese history. There is only a richly preserved putative ancient Chinese history, which I am suggesting is “humanized” mythology. But the real importance of euhemerism is not whether history becomes myth, or myth becomes history. The real importance is that the distinction between the two, and hence between gods and men, has been obliterated. The Chinese seem to have totally effaced this distinction and this is the feature of archaic Chinese religion and myth that should command our attention.
If Carrier is intent on using 'reverse euhemerism' in his arguments re the NT JC figure - so be it. I doubt, however, that such a use of 'reverse euhemerism' will do his arguments - and thus the case for ahistoricity - any good at all.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by Hawthorne »

Euhemerism in the proper Greek sense is the belief that myth is nothing more than forgotten history, and what the Greeks enjoyed as their mythological heritage was, according to the doctrines of the fourth century B.C. Sicilian philosopher Euhemeros, just remote Greek history imperfectly remembered.

Isn't this close, perhaps not a pefect fit, to what we have in the case of Jesus? The belief that the myth of Jesus is imperfectly remembered history? This should be distinguished from "myth" that is actually imperfectly remembered history. Euhemeros argued that Greek gods had once been men [the gospels claim a Jewish-Graeco God, Jesus, had once been a man]. It is not the case that these Greek gods had once actually been men. Right? It is the historicization of Gods.

Personally, I do not think Carrier's use is a perfect fit, but the more I think about it, the more I see his point. Again, I only wanted to dispute your use of the source on Chinese myths. It didn't say what you wanted it to say. I am not sure that this new source you present does either.

But the real importance of euhemerism is not whether history becomes myth, or myth becomes history. The real importance is that the distinction between the two, and hence between gods and men, has been obliterated. The Chinese seem to have totally effaced this distinction and this is the feature of archaic Chinese religion and myth that should command our attention.

See?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by maryhelena »

Hawthorne wrote:Euhemerism in the proper Greek sense is the belief that myth is nothing more than forgotten history, and what the Greeks enjoyed as their mythological heritage was, according to the doctrines of the fourth century B.C. Sicilian philosopher Euhemeros, just remote Greek history imperfectly remembered.

Isn't this close, perhaps not a pefect fit, to what we have in the case of Jesus? The belief that the myth of Jesus is imperfectly remembered history? This should be distinguished from "myth" that is actually imperfectly remembered history. Euhemeros argued that Greek gods had once been men [the gospels claim a Jewish-Graeco God, Jesus, had once been a man]. It is not the case that these Greek gods had once actually been men. Right? It is the historicization of Gods.
The gospel story is not about the "historicization of Gods'. The gospel story is about a mythologizing of Jewish history.

What we have in the gospel JC story is Christian mythology; a mythological story that reflects OT prophetic interpretations, ('salvation' history) allegories and midrash and theology/philosophy. Prophetic interpretations, to have any value whatsoever, however arbitrary, have to have some relevance for Jewish history. Not imagined history, not pseudo-history - real concrete historical realities. Belief in 'imperfectly remembered history' has no role to play here. Euhemerism, in it's fundamental definition, does have a role to play. 'Reverse euhemerism' does not.

Personally, I do not think Carrier's use is a perfect fit, but the more I think about it, the more I see his point. Again, I only wanted to dispute your use of the source on Chinese myths. It didn't say what you wanted it to say. I am not sure that this new source you present does either.
The real point of all this? There is the standard, the usual use, definition, of euhemerism - the Greek sense that is referenced in the above quote. And there is something referred to as 'reverse euhemerism'. This 'reverse euhemerism', seemingly, being used in connection with Chinese mythology.
But the real importance of euhemerism is not whether history becomes myth, or myth becomes history. The real importance is that the distinction between the two, and hence between gods and men, has been obliterated. The Chinese seem to have totally effaced this distinction and this is the feature of archaic Chinese religion and myth that should command our attention.

See?
See what? That the use of 'reverse euhemerism' in dealing with Chinese mythology should become the norm in dealing with Christian mythology? That's one very big assumption........................... :shock:
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by maryhelena »

Apologies. The chart has come out a bit messed up - will try and fix it.....otherwise the link to FRDB is:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

However, you may have to be signed in in order to view this thread.

-----------

OK - I think I fixed the chart..... :)

--------------------------------
Hawthorne.

Using the standard definition of Euhemerism as a tool to interpret, to understand, the gospel story, a chart dealing with Jewish history can be drawn up.i.e. the gospel mythological story has a foundation, a root, a linkage, to Hasmonean/Jewish history. Yes, of course, such a linkage raises many questions - but that linkage also opens up a road forward in searching for early christian origins. The ahistoricists need to put 'Paul' and his imagination aside for a while and consider the historical realities that the gospel writers are dealing with. The historical canvas, the historical realities, from which the gospel writers created their mythological JC story is wide. It stretches way back from 70 c.e., way back into the BCE period.

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

Posted March 22. 2012. FRDB BCHF

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart below has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used. This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events. It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure. That assumption, when considered in the light of history, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and that history’s narrative as set down by Josephus and Philo, is unfounded.

HISTORY and Coins.
Philo (died about 50 c.e.) Flaccus
JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.) Antiquities: (about 94 c.e.)
The composite gospel Jesus figure based upon the historical figures of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus; and Philip the Tetrarch.
King Antigonus: Mattathias: High Priest of the Jews: Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek...(40-37 b.c.) ... Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.) John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear the High Priest's servant.
... ... Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared all enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16 gJohn indicates a three year ministy for JC
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22 Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody....... The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilinqual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
... ... ...and then .but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...) Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3
... ... Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1 Acts: 11:16. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Philip the Tetrarch: Herodian Coins. (died, re Josephus in the 20th year of Tiberius) ... When Philip also had built Paneas, a city at the fountains of Jordan, he named it Cesarea. He also advanced the village Bethsaids, situate at the lake of Gennesareth, unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name of Julias, Antiquities: Book 18 ch.2 John 1:43-45. Philip, Andrew and Peter come from Bethsaida. Around the villages of Casearea Phillipi JC asked the disciples who do people say he is. Peter says: "You are the Messiah". Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16: 13-16.
... ... (about 34 c.e.)About this time it was that Philip, Herod's ' brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty- seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy. Antiquities: Book 18 ch.4 disciples/apostles: John 6:70; Mark 3:14; Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13. A rich man from Arimathea, Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. Matthew 27:57-59. Mark 15:43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. JC crucified during rule of Pilate - which ends in 36 c.e.
Agrippa I (d.44/45 c.e.) Herodian Coins. The mocking of Carabbas:... a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick ..., he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, .....Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians;....when Flaccus heard, or rather when he saw this, he would have done right if he had apprehended the maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give to those who reviled him any opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disguisedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king. ... The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. ..... The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him............Pilate released Barabbas.

While the chart has set down the historical backdrop in which to view the gospel JC figure, the chart is not the whole JC story. That story goes on to include OT midrash and mythological elements. However, without the historical backdrop, the gospel JC story would have had no legs upon which to run; no legs to allow it to be viewed as a plausible historical account. Crucified itinerate carpenters might well present historical possibilities and assumptions. However, belief in historical possibilities is something down the line, not something immediate. The immediate reality does not allow for possibilities - it allows only for what reality is. And that is historical reality not assumptions or possibilities.

The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.
Last edited by maryhelena on Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:46 am, edited 7 times in total.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by maryhelena »

repeat post
Last edited by maryhelena on Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by maryhelena »

repeat post
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by Hawthorne »

maryhelena wrote:
Hawthorne wrote:Euhemerism in the proper Greek sense is the belief that myth is nothing more than forgotten history, and what the Greeks enjoyed as their mythological heritage was, according to the doctrines of the fourth century B.C. Sicilian philosopher Euhemeros, just remote Greek history imperfectly remembered.

Isn't this close, perhaps not a pefect fit, to what we have in the case of Jesus? The belief that the myth of Jesus is imperfectly remembered history? This should be distinguished from "myth" that is actually imperfectly remembered history. Euhemeros argued that Greek gods had once been men [the gospels claim a Jewish-Graeco God, Jesus, had once been a man]. It is not the case that these Greek gods had once actually been men. Right? It is the historicization of Gods.
The gospel story is not about the "historicization of Gods'. The gospel story is about a mythologizing of Jewish history.
Isn't that an open question? Even, in fact, the question under examination here?
What we have in the gospel JC story is Christian mythology; a mythological story that reflects OT prophetic interpretations, ('salvation' history) allegories and midrash and theology/philosophy. Prophetic interpretations, to have any value whatsoever, however arbitrary, have to have some relevance for Jewish history. Not imagined history, not pseudo-history - real concrete historical realities. Belief in 'imperfectly remembered history' has no role to play here. Euhemerism, in it's fundamental definition, does have a role to play. 'Reverse euhemerism' does not.
We're two ships that passed in the night on this. My position is that you are misunderstanding the sources that you have referenced. I tried to highlight that for you in the last post. It is the belief that myths are imperfectly remembered history as opposed to the fact that myths are imperfectly remembered history.

note that I said here:
Personally, I do not think Carrier's use is a perfect fit, but the more I think about it, the more I see his point. Again, I only wanted to dispute your use of the source on Chinese myths. It didn't say what you wanted it to say. I am not sure that this new source you present does either.
The real point of all this? There is the standard, the usual use, definition, of euhemerism - the Greek sense that is referenced in the above quote. And there is something referred to as 'reverse euhemerism'. This 'reverse euhemerism', seemingly, being used in connection with Chinese mythology.
I think you have misapplied this. Your own source says that euhemerism is the belief that myths are imperfectly remembered history.
But the real importance of euhemerism is not whether history becomes myth, or myth becomes history. The real importance is that the distinction between the two, and hence between gods and men, has been obliterated. The Chinese seem to have totally effaced this distinction and this is the feature of archaic Chinese religion and myth that should command our attention.

See?
See what? That the use of 'reverse euhemerism' in dealing with Chinese mythology should become the norm in dealing with Christian mythology? That's one very big assumption........................... :shock:
You aren't really addressing what I have said here. You have put forth references that work against your own definition. It doesn't even make sense, as Carrier pointed out, when you consider that Euhemeros was talking about gods like Zeus. How is Zeus related to actual historical events? Doesn't it make sense that in our modern usage of the euhemerization that we are talking about a belief that myth is imperfectly remembered history? Euhemeros isn't correct that the Greek myths are imperfectly remembered history, right?

That being said, I am not making a case as to whether or not Jesus stories are imperfectly remembered history or not (so as far as addressing this point, your subsequent post on Jesus isn't relevant).
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by Hawthorne »

maryhelena wrote:repeat post

I understand your chart. I don't have anything specifically against the view that the Jesus stories are misremembered or enhanced historical memories. That's one possibility amongst others that I don't rule out. I do find it difficult, in my mind, to "set aside" what is potentially falsifying data (Paul's letters).

I edited this in to avoid triple posting:

It confuses me when you present a source that says this:
Euhemerism in the proper Greek sense is the belief that myth is nothing more than forgotten history, and what the Greeks enjoyed as their mythological heritage was, according to the doctrines of the fourth century B.C. Sicilian philosopher Euhemeros, just remote Greek history imperfectly remembered.
But then you say this:
Belief in 'imperfectly remembered history' has no role to play here. Euhemerism, in it's fundamental definition, does have a role to play.
You present one thing as a definition in the "proper Greek sense" but then in the next breath deny that that is the definition. It's very confusing.
Hawthorne
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by Hawthorne »

GakuseiDon wrote: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?
After giving this some thought and considering the source of the word and several definitions posted by maryhelena, I think it's clear that your understanding of the word is not correct.
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.
The correct understanding is: the belief that gods were originally mortal beings. You are leaving out the "belief" part and actually historicizing the gods. As Carrier points out (see maryhelena's quote), Euhemeros was talking about Zeus, clearly not a historical figure, but one that he believed had been. See the distinction?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2860
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Gospels as "euhemerized" stories about Jesus?

Post by maryhelena »

Hawthorne wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
Hawthorne wrote:Euhemerism in the proper Greek sense is the belief that myth is nothing more than forgotten history, and what the Greeks enjoyed as their mythological heritage was, according to the doctrines of the fourth century B.C. Sicilian philosopher Euhemeros, just remote Greek history imperfectly remembered.

Isn't this close, perhaps not a pefect fit, to what we have in the case of Jesus? The belief that the myth of Jesus is imperfectly remembered history? This should be distinguished from "myth" that is actually imperfectly remembered history. Euhemeros argued that Greek gods had once been men [the gospels claim a Jewish-Graeco God, Jesus, had once been a man]. It is not the case that these Greek gods had once actually been men. Right? It is the historicization of Gods.
The gospel story is not about the "historicization of Gods'. The gospel story is about a mythologizing of Jewish history.
Isn't that an open question? Even, in fact, the question under examination here?
What we have in the gospel JC story is Christian mythology; a mythological story that reflects OT prophetic interpretations, ('salvation' history) allegories and midrash and theology/philosophy. Prophetic interpretations, to have any value whatsoever, however arbitrary, have to have some relevance for Jewish history. Not imagined history, not pseudo-history - real concrete historical realities. Belief in 'imperfectly remembered history' has no role to play here. Euhemerism, in it's fundamental definition, does have a role to play. 'Reverse euhemerism' does not.
We're two ships that passed in the night on this. My position is that you are misunderstanding the sources that you have referenced. I tried to highlight that for you in the last post. It is the belief that myths are imperfectly remembered history as opposed to the fact that myths are imperfectly remembered history.

note that I said here:
Personally, I do not think Carrier's use is a perfect fit, but the more I think about it, the more I see his point. Again, I only wanted to dispute your use of the source on Chinese myths. It didn't say what you wanted it to say. I am not sure that this new source you present does either.
The real point of all this? There is the standard, the usual use, definition, of euhemerism - the Greek sense that is referenced in the above quote. And there is something referred to as 'reverse euhemerism'. This 'reverse euhemerism', seemingly, being used in connection with Chinese mythology.
I think you have misapplied this. Your own source says that euhemerism is the belief that myths are imperfectly remembered history.
But the real importance of euhemerism is not whether history becomes myth, or myth becomes history. The real importance is that the distinction between the two, and hence between gods and men, has been obliterated. The Chinese seem to have totally effaced this distinction and this is the feature of archaic Chinese religion and myth that should command our attention.

See?
See what? That the use of 'reverse euhemerism' in dealing with Chinese mythology should become the norm in dealing with Christian mythology? That's one very big assumption........................... :shock:
You aren't really addressing what I have said here. You have put forth references that work against your own definition. It doesn't even make sense, as Carrier pointed out, when you consider that Euhemeros was talking about gods like Zeus. How is Zeus related to actual historical events? Doesn't it make sense that in our modern usage of the euhemerization that we are talking about a belief that myth is imperfectly remembered history? Euhemeros isn't correct that the Greek myths are imperfectly remembered history, right?

That being said, I am not making a case as to whether or not Jesus stories are imperfectly remembered history or not (so as far as addressing this point, your subsequent post on Jesus isn't relevant).
Hawthorne

We are going around the houses here.

The Wikipedia definition, explaination, of euhemerism is:

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. It was named for its creator Euhemerus.
Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events..... Euhemerus is credited as having developed the theory in application to all myths, considering mythology to be "history in disguise.


Now then, I am prepared to go along with this standard definition of euhemerism. If you want to discredit this definition so be it. Euhemerism seeks historical explanation, historical roots, historical linkage in mythology. That is the use I have put it to in seeking to understand the gospel story.

If you want to use a 'reverse euhemerism' in attempting to interpret, explain, the gospel story - then so be it. Each to his own. My opinion is that the standard definition of euhemerism is a better 'tool' for the task at hand.

I prefer not to have to continually repeat myself and bring back quotations that have previously been made in this thread. I suggest we simply beg to differ.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply