Independent euhemerization of Jesus in Pagan circles

[Giuseppe]

One may think about a lot of infinite possible reasons the Christians would have euhemerized the deity called Jesus/Joshua in a historical setting.

Despite of it, before that the Christians themselves attempted the operation, we have evidence that at least for the source used by Suetonius who talked about the impulsore Chresto, the deity Jesus was already euhemerized as the agitator who provoked the troubles in Rome under Claudius.

Often Suetonius is ignored in virtue of the mix of confusion and ignorance his mention of Chrestus witnessed.

But then one remembers that precisely the mix of confusion and ignorance by outsiders is the precise factor that causes often the birth of legends.

[mlinssen]

One may think about a lot of infinite possible reasons the Christians would have euhemerized the deity called Jesus/Joshua in a historical setting.

Despite of it, before that the Christians themselves attempted the operation, we have evidence that at least for the source used by Suetonius who talked about the [i]impulsore Chresto[/i], the deity Jesus was already euhemerized as the agitator who provoked the troubles in Rome under Claudius.

Often Suetonius is ignored in virtue of the mix of confusion and ignorance his mention of Chrestus witnessed.

But then one remembers that precisely the mix of confusion and ignorance by outsiders is the precise factor that causes often the birth of legends.

Really? I've seen slightly more elaborate descriptions for deities, especially when they're supposedly called Jesus/Joshua yet get named Chrestos.
There's not even an adjective spent, this is the most minimal ablativus absolutus that can exist

[Giuseppe]

Suetonius has confused a foreign deity with a historical person. This is called euhemerization (Euhemerus imagined humans behind the deities without having real evidence of the former).

Hence Thomas or Marcion or "Mark" had already before them a situation where the belief that Jesus (or IS) was a human was diffused among the Pagans, before that one of them invented the first not-life of Jesus on the earth.

[mlinssen]

Suetonius has confused a foreign deity with a historical person. This is called euhemerization (Euhemerus imagined humans behind the deities without having real evidence of the former).

Hence Thomas or Marcion or "Mark" had already before them a situation where the belief that Jesus (or IS) was a human was diffused among the Pagans, before that one of them invented the first not-life of Jesus on the earth.

It's only one name and one noun, Giuseppe. How can you make all of this out of just that?

If you take Thomas, the IS there gets explicitly opposed to "them in flesh" but still functions like a regular person in the remainder.
That's where the story starts. It continues in the gospels, if you evaluate only extant texts - and everything else in between is pure conjecture

[Giuseppe]

but still functions like a regular person in the remainder.

like a regular person, or like a spirit possessor talking only via human intermediaries?

This question has been raised by both historicists and mythicists about the origin of the sayings of Q (== a never existed source). Why can't the same question be raised about the origin of the sayings of Thomas?

[Giuseppe]

An useful comparison is with the Pythia talking under spiritual possession by Apollo at Delphi. The name of the Pythia was not important. The sayings of the Pythia were really sayings of Apollo.

So the sayings of Thomas are really sayings of IS.

[mlinssen]

but still functions like a regular person in the remainder.

like a regular person, or like a spirit possessor talking only via human intermediaries?

This question has been raised by both historicists and mythicists about the origin of the sayings of Q (== a never existed source). Why can't the same question be raised about the origin of the sayings of Thomas?

If you describe the different ways in which a "spirit possessor talking only via human intermediaries" would behave from the way that IS in Thomas behaves, I could form an opinion on that

origin of the sayings - you're now conflating the text of what Thomas - something really solid, tangible, and objectively verifiable - with something non existing that allegedly preceded it. One topic at a time please

[Giuseppe]

If you describe the different ways in which a "spirit possessor talking only via human intermediaries" would behave from the way that IS in Thomas behaves, I could form an opinion on that

isn't it more simple?

Thomas has again and again "IS has said".
At Delphi, we hear: "Apollo has said".

Isn't it sufficient to consider IS a revelatory being?

I have talked about Q because you seem to think that Thomas requires IS who talks in the way Jesus is said to talk in Q, i.e. like a regular person before his loved disciples. I think that the evidence would go in the opposite direction.

[MrMacSon]

... we have 'evidence' that at least for the source used by Suetonius who talked about the impulsore Chresto, the deity Jesus was already euhemerized as the agitator who provoked the troubles in Rome under Claudius.

[single quotation marks added by me, MrMac]

yeah, Nah. Who or what Suetonius' impulsore Chresto was is not certain. We know

• followers of Serapis were likely to have been called 'Christians' from Hadrian's alleged letter to Servianus;* and

• Simon, said to be a contemporary of Paul, and thus contemporaneous with Claudius, was also said to be called 'Christ'
  
  • Justin Martyr stated that the followers of Simon were called 'Christians': 1 Apology 26.6
  • Origen said that the only people who honoured Simon were 'Christians' (Contra Celsus 1.57)
  • other sources about Simonians
  
  ['Christian's and 'Christ' might well include 'Chrestians' and 'Chresto[s]'

---

* I have just learned about a[n alleged] letter by Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, about how to treat 'Christians' (which source may only be arch-embellisher of 'Christian history', Eusebius)

“If, therefore, the provincials can clearly show their charges against these Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not just petitions, and mere outcries against Christians. For it is more fitting, if any one brings an accusation, that you should examine it” – Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV

[mlinssen]

If you describe the different ways in which a "spirit possessor talking only via human intermediaries" would behave from the way that IS in Thomas behaves, I could form an opinion on that

isn't it more simple?

Thomas has again and again "IS has said".
At Delphi, we hear: "Apollo has said".

Isn't it sufficient to consider IS a revelatory being?

I have talked about Q because you seem to think that Thomas requires IS who talks in the way Jesus is said to talk in Q, i.e. like a regular person before his loved disciples. I think that the evidence would go in the opposite direction.

Giuseppe, I worry about you